Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Son Of Shri Shiv ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 2358/2019
1. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Son Of Shri Shiv Dayal Agrawal,
Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ghadi
Sawairam, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar (Raj.)
2. Ramkesh Gurjar Son Of Shri Kailash Chandra, Resident Of
Village Ganvli, Post Lalwas, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Siyaram Meena Son Of Shri Kajodmal Meena, Resident Of
Village Rohdakalan, Malagwas, District Dausa (Raj.)
4. Vikram Soni Son Of Shri Chetram Soni, Resident Of Reni
Mohalla, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar (Raj.)
5. Kebal Singh Son Of Shri Vijendra, Resident Of Nagla
Darvesha, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.)
6. Usha Daughter Of Shri Raj Kumar, Wife Of Shri Arvind
Kumar, Resident Of Dron Colony, Behind Anaj Mandi,
Shahpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Sushila Kumari Daughter Of Shri Meer Singh, Resident Of
Village Khundiabass, Post Rampura Beri, Tehsil Rajgarh,
District Churu (Raj.)
8. Nirma Meena Daughter Of Shri Deep Ram Meena, Wife Of
Shri Amar Singh Meena, Resident Of Quarter No. 3/6, Rie
Campus, Pushkar Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
9. Jasvinder Singh Son Of Shri Ladda Singh, Resident Of
Village Chak 10 K, Post Chak 27A, Tehsil Anupgarh,
District Shri Gangangar (Raj.)
10. Geeta Bai Daughter Of Shri Shiv Taj Singh, Resident Of
Village And Post Bijorawas, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar
(Raj.)
11. Ram Vinay Son Of Shri Hoshiyar Singh, Resident Of
Village Aheer Bhagola, Post Ajarka, Tehsil Mundawar,
District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchatiraj Department, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:20:34 AM)
(2 of 5) [CW-2358/2019]
2. The Secretary Education Department, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar
(Raj.)
5. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar (Raj.)
6. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dausa
(Raj.)
7. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa (Raj.)
8. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jalore
(Raj.)
9. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore (Raj.)
10. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Dholpur
(Raj.)
11. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur (Raj.)
12. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jhalawar
(Raj.)
13. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhalawar (Raj.)
14. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Ajmer
(Raj.)
15. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
25/03/2019
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that 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 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:20:34 AM) (3 of 5) [CW-2358/2019] (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 application 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 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 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:20:34 AM) (4 of 5) [CW-2358/2019] 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."
It is further contended that in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 17011/2018 (Vijay Laxmi Vijayuvargiye Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) decided on 6.8.2018, similar view was taken by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court.
Counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. (supra), within a time frame, which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. (supra).
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:20:34 AM) (5 of 5) [CW-2358/2019] possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than three months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J //bmg 234 (Downloaded on 30/06/2019 at 08:20:34 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)