Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khushboo Sekhawat vs The Secretary (2025:Rj-Jd:38461) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38461]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16301/2025
1. Khushboo Sekhawat D/o Attar Singh Sekhawat, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Post Office Gali Ward No. 17 Chawani
Neem-Ka-Thana, Dist. Sikar, At Present Posting Gps
Ramdan Ki Dhani, Nosar, Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
2. Ranuka Kumari D/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/
o Heera Pansari Ki Gali, Sewar Tehsil And Dist. Bharatpur,
At Present Posting Gps Chenaniyo Ki Dhani, Singodia,
Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Kgbv Sahabad,
Dist. Baran.
3. Basanti Bhamboo D/o Chena Ram Bhamboo, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Soneli, Dist. Nagaur, At Present Posting Gps
Bhilo Ki Basti Baytu Bheemji, Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
Deputation At Svgms, Nagaur Dist. Nagaur.
4. Beena D/o Dinesh Kumar W/o Vikash Kumar, Aged About
32 Years, R/o 67 Bashirpur, Dist. Mahendragarh (H.r.) At
Present Posting Ggups Pareu, Block Gida, Dist. Barmer
Deputation At Shaheed Chhaju Singh Gsss Chudina, Block
Buhana, Dist. Jhunjhunun.
5. Seema D/o Kana Ram W/o Dinesh Potaliya, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Jhareli, Tehsil Jayal, Dist. Nagaur, At
Present Posting Gups Jogasar Saiyon Ki Dhani Panawara,
Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Kgbv Minority
Type Iii Nagaur.
6. Indu Kumari Chobisa D/o Prakash Chandra Chobisa W/o
Shiv Shakti Choubisa, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ambika
Sadan Brahampuri, Kanore, Tehsil Bhinder, Dist. Udaipur,
At Present Posting Ggups Pabuji Ki Oran Panyala Kallan,
Block Payana Kallan, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Kgbv
Brahmanan Barothi, Udaipur.
7. Seema Sharma D/o Radhe Shyam Sharma W/o Chandra
Prakash, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Shri Amarpura, Post
Kithana, Tehsil Chidawa, Dist. Jhunjhunun, At Present
Posting Gps Janiyo Ka Nada/naiyon Ki Dhani, Baytu
Bheemji, Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Mggs
Ghardana Kala, Dist. Jhunjhunun.
8. Nidhi Upadhyay D/o Hari Om Upadhyay, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Ganesh Chowk Kelwara, Dist. Rajsamand, At
Present Posting Gups Naiyon Ki Dhani Chawa, Block And
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38461] (2 of 5) [CW-16301/2025]
Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Mggs Dhoinda Dist.
Rajsamand.
9. Vineeta D/o Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Omnagar Palikhera, Dist. Mathura (Up), At Present
Posting Gps Kerlipura Hemji Ka Tala, Block Baytu, Dist.
Barmer.
10. Sanika D/o Virender Singh W/o Praduman Yadav, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Iqbalpur Nangli, Dist. Mahendragarh
(Hr), At Present Posting Gps Khajuro Ki Dhani Kesarpura,
Block Patodi, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Seth Umrao Lal
Banariya Gsss Banethi, Dist. Kotputli-Behror.
11. Abhay Singh Chouhan S/o Jalam Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Azad Chouk, Kelwara Dist.
Rajsamand, At Present Posting Gups Sadram Ki Beri
Sanwa, Block Dhanau, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Mggs
Kelwara, Rajsamand.
12. Mudita Paneri D/o Hiralal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Devi
Ka Was, Rajsmand, Dis. Rajsmand At Present Posting
Gups Ishronisarno Ki Dhani Baitu Chamanji, Block Baytu,
Dist. Barmer. Deputation At Mggs Sameecha, Block
Kumbhalgarh, Dist. Rajsamand.
13. Sonia D/o Shiv Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No.
4 Gali No. 6 Vikash Kunj, Vikas Nagar, Mohan Gardan
Near Uttamnagar, Dis. West Delhi (New Delhi), At Present
Posting Gps Mithiya Tala Chainaniyon Ki Dhani /
Sewaniyala, Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer. Deputation At
Mggs Aklimpur, (Neemrana) Dist. Kotputli-Behror.
14. Lalit Meena S/o Manak Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Khedaliya Kunthwa, Dist. Rajsamand, At Present
Posting Gps Ijataniyo Ki Dhani Lakdasar, Block Sedwa
Dist. Barmer.
15. Jyoti D/o Sarjit Singh W/o Umed Singh, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Mandola, Dist. Mahendragarh (Hr) At
Present Posting Gps Soda Nada, Koloo, Block Baytu, Dist.
Barmer. Deputation At Mggs Mehtawas (216242).
16. Kamlesh D/o Balwant Singh W/o Ashok Kumar, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Kanhawas Tehsil Neemrana Dist.
Alwar, At Present Posting Gps Bhilo Ki Basti, Baitu Bhimji,
Block Baytu, Dist. Barmer.
(Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:39 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38461] (3 of 5) [CW-16301/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education,
District Balotra, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Shekhawat for Mr. TS
Rathore
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order 28/08/2025
1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had approached Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, which writ petition has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief to the petitioners in light of judgment in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra). (Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38461] (4 of 5) [CW-16301/2025]
2. In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the Bench at Jaipur after noticing orders in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and Suman Bai (supra) observed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3247/2015: Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 1st Apri., 2015, relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, observing 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 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 (Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:39 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:38461] (5 of 5) [CW-16301/2025] (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."
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.
Ordered accordingly."
3. In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is also disposed of in light of order passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).
4. The order has been passed based on the submissions made in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case, the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioners would be entitled to the relief.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/133- (Downloaded on 28/08/2025 at 09:54:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)