Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Teena Arya vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 March, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 3956/2019
1. Teena Arya D/o Anil Kumar Arya W/o Goutam Chand, Aged
About 32 Years, 478, Regaran Mohalla, Giri, District Pali
(Raj.). (Initially Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Maths
At Gups, Giri P.s. Raipur, District Pali. Presently Posted At
Gups, Nokh, P.s. Raipur, District Pali).
2. Suman Chouhan D/o Govind Singh W/o Vijendra Singh
Chouhan, Aged About 29 Years, 14, Madhukar Nagar, Goyal
Gas Godam Ke Opposite, Jain Gurukul Sr. Secondary
School, Udaipur Road, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
(Initially Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Maths At
Gups, Babra, P.s. Raipur, District Pali. Presently Posted At
Gss, Ramgadh Sedhotaan, P.s. Raipur, District Pali).
3. Kavita Kumari D/o Chiranji Lal Kanudiya, Aged About 29
Years, Village Mandrela, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.). (Posted Ast Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps,
Pariharo Ki Dhani, Nokha, P.s. Kolayat, District Bikaner).
4. Suman Rani D/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Village
Bahlol Nagar, Dablirathan, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Sadero Ki
Dhani, Nokha, P.s. Kolayat, District Bikaner).
5. Rajkumari D/o Satyanarayan, Aged About 39 Years, Village
Momasar, Tehsil Dungargarh, District Bikaner (Raj.).
(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I Atchhoti Bhakhri,
Nokha, P.s. Kolayat, District Bikaner).
6. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Kashi Ram, Aged About 36 Years,
Village Thirajwala, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I English At
Gups, Pahadpura, P.s. Sanchore, District Jalore).
7. Rajkumar Verma S/o Shri Shankar Lal, Aged About 28
Years, Village Thoi, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar
(Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Pakori
Pyou, Asop, P.s. Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur).
8. Shiv Ratan Khyalia S/o Bhagirath Rai Khyalia, Aged About
47 Years, Near Tantia Well, Ward No. 16, Sardar Shahar,
District Churu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii
Social Studies At Gups, Aasasar, P.s. Sardar Shahar, District
Churu).
9. Jyoti Yadav D/o Kailash Chandra, Aged About 26 Years,
Village And Post Raipur, Ahiran, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At
Gups, Dadarheda, P.s. Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar).
10. Durga Kumari Meena D/o Ugmaram Meena, Aged About 36
Years, House No. 392, Shriram Colony, Foy Sagar Road,
Ajmer (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Social
Science At Gups, Jojasar, P.s. Nohar, District
Hanumangarh).
11. Shekhawat Sunita Kumari D/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About
37 Years, Deora Ka Vas, Vpo Nana, Tehsil Bali, District Pali
(Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level Ii Social Studies
At Gups, Virampura Bhagal, P.s. Bali, District Pali).
12. Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Dhanna Ram Meena, Aged
About 29 Years, Village And Post Chamunderi Ranawatan,
Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii
(2 of 6) [CW-3956/2019]
Level-I At Gps, Dungarji Bhagal, P.s. Bali, District Pali).
13. Shish Ram S/o Ram Kishan, Aged About 40 Years, C-52-A,
Vidhan Shabha Colony, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science At Ggups, Barawa, P.s.
Bali, District Pali. Presently Posted At Gups, Sokada, P.s.
Bali, Pali).
14. Govind Singh Gurjar S/o Prabhu Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Village Ghariyala, Post Nimodat, Tehsil Malarna Dungar,
District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade
Iii Level-Ii At Gups, Bikrai, P.s. Sahada, District Bhilwara).
15. Kamla Meena D/o Shrikishan Meena W/o Suresh Chand
Meena, Aged About 40 Years, 131, Agra Road, Near Keshav
Vidhyapeeth Shree Ram Vihar, Jamdoli, Luniawas, District
Jaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science
Maths At Gups, Badiya (Sumel), P.s. Raipur, District Pali).
16. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shyonath Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Village Khicharo Ki Dhani, Post Khirwa, Via Bidasar, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher
Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Genjra, P.s.
Gangrar, District Chittorgarh).
17. Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Mool Chand Meena, Aged About 31
Years, Village And Post Dhanawar, Tehsil Baswa, District
Dausa (Raj.). (Initially Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level Ii
Hindi At Gups, Venpura, P.s. Sumerpur, District Pali,
Presently Posted Ast Gups, Guda Kesar Singh, P.s. Rani,
District Pali).
18. Suman Jakhar D/o Ramkaran Singh W/o Ashok Kumar,
Aged About 28 Years, Village And Post Narodara, Tehsil
Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade
Iii Level-I At Gps, Lalsi Kanya, P.s. Laxmangarh, District
Sikar).
19. Jagdeesh Prasad Meena S/o Teeka Ram Meena, Aged About
28 Years, Village Adalpur, Post Machri, Tehsil Todabhim,
District Karauli (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I
At Gps, Khetalaji Mandir, Varman, P.s. Reodar, District
Sirohi).
20. Vijay Singh Meena S/o Banwari Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, Village Laloda, Post Papurana, Tehsil Khetri, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii
Social Studies At Gups, Kareli, P.s. Reodar, District Sirohi).
21. Vinita Yadav W/o Ajay Kumar Yadav D/o Ram Singh Yadav,
Aged About 33 Years, House No. 4 K 14, Talwandi, District
Kota. (Initially Posted As Teacher Grade Iii (Level-I) At Gps
Meghaniyo Ki Dhani, Village Adel, Sindhari, District Barmer.
Presently Posted As Gps Aasan Nakti Panchayat Anta,
District Baran).
22. Annu Yadav D/o Amrit Lal Yadav, Aged About 33 Years,
Ward No. 13, Fatehnagar, Udaipur (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Hindi At Gps, Kuncholi, P.s. Mavli,
District Udaipur).
23. Anita D/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, Ward
No. 06, Kumawas, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As
Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Raiko Ki Dhani, Aadel, P.s.
Sindhari, District Barmer).
24. Suman Kumari Vaishnav D/o Raja Rma Vaishnav, Aged
About 35 Years, Village Ramgarh, Tehsil Masuda, District
(3 of 6) [CW-3956/2019]
Ajmer. (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps,
Jhalamand Babra, P.s. Raipur, District Pali).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Pali.
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
7. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bikaner.
8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
9. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jalore.
10. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
11. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jodhpur.
12. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu.
13. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Churu.
14. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.
15. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Alwar.
16. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.
17. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Hanumangarh.
18. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
19. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bhilwara.
20. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
21. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Chittorgarh.
22. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sikar.
23. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Sikar.
24. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi,
25. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Sirohi.
26. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Baran.
27. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Baran.
28. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
29. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Barmer.
30. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
31. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kalyan Singh.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 14/03/2019 (4 of 6) [CW-3956/2019] Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Court in case of Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - SBCW No.3082/2018, decided on 09.02.2018. The judgment reads as under:-
"The controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed thus:
"5. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and the judgment of the Division Bench in Hari Ram and the subsequent order dated 21.7.2001 whereby clarification mapplication of the State Government was dismissed, I find that the entitlement of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of originally prepared merit list cannot be denied. If admittedly the candidates, who are lower in merit, have been granted appointment, those who are above them in the merit cannot be denied such right of appointment. Seniority as per the rules in the case of direct recruitment on the post in question is required to be assigned on the basis of placement of candidates in the select list and when the selection is common and the merit list on the basis of which appointments were made is also common, right to secure appointment to both the set of employees thus flows from their selection which in turn is based on merit. Regard being had to all these facts, merely because one batch of employee approached this Court later and another earlier, and both of them having been appointed, the candidates who appeared 6 lower in merit cannot certainly be placed at a higher place in seniority. It was on this legal analogy that Division Bench of this Court in Niyaz Mohd.Khan (supra) held that the petitioner therein entitled to be placed in seniority in order of merit of common selection amongst persons appointed in pursuance of the same selection with effect from the date person lower in order of merit than the petitioner was appointed with consequential benefits.
6. I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents No.4 to 8 that the judgment of the learned Single Judge should be so read so as to infer therefrom that though the petitioners would be entitled to claim appointment but not seniority (5 of 6) [CW-3956/2019] above the candidates who are already appointed even though they admittedly are above them in the merit list. Infact, the judgment of the learned Single Judge merely reiterated the direction of the Division Bench in Hari Ram (supra) in favour of the petitioners. But construction of that judgment in the manner in which the respondents want this Court to do, would negat the mandate of the Rules 20 and 21 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which requires seniority to be assigned as per the inter-se merit of 7 the candidates in the merit list based on common selection. Even otherwise, no such intention of the Court is discernible from reading of that judgment. Mere appointment of the petitioner was a sufficient compliance of the judgment and not total compliance was the view taken by this Court also when contempt petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Question with regard to correct and wrong assignment of seniority having arisen subsequent to appointment of the petitioners would obviously give rise to a afresh cause of action. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, cannot be thrown either barred by resjudicata or otherwise improperly constituted.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list."
Applying the principle, as extracted hereinabove, to the facts of the case at hand the factual position emerges is that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process in response to advertisement issued by Zila Parishad in the year 2012, inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners earlier instituted writ applications and as a consequence of directions issued by this Court, the result was revised in the month of November, 2016; resulting into appointment of the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I/Level-II).
Undeniably, the petitioners have already been accorded appointment. However, State-respondents have declined seniority and other benefits to the petitioners from the date the petitioners became entitled on account of revision of the result while candidates lower in merit to the petitioners have been accorded those benefits. Thus, the petitioners have claimed benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis from the date juniors to the petitioners, have been accorded in the same recruitment process of the year 2012.
(6 of 6) [CW-3956/2019] Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis to the petitioners from the date junior(s) to the petitioner(s) has/have been accorded with reference to the same recruitment process of the year of 2012.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the issue of petitioners in terms of the judgment of Surja Ram (Supra) by a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 296-Sumit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)