Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Kumar Patel vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 November, 2018
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ No. 17284/2018
1. Prakash Kumar Patel S/o Gotaji Patel, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 82, Patel Mohalla, Bana Khurd, Bana Khurd, Tehsil Sarada, District Udaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Schence Maths At Gups, Padarda (Shyampura), P.s. Sarada, District Udaipur).
2. Dhanna Ram Meghwal S/o Kanwra Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sindhari, District Barmer (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level - At Gps, Gogaji Ka Mandir, P.s. Sindhari, District Barmer).
3. Nawal Ram Bunkar S/o Moda Ram Bunkar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Randela, Barora, Tehsil Salumbar, District Udaipur (Raj.).(Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level- Ii Social Studies At Gups, Amda, P.s. Falasiya, District Udaipur).
4. Vimala Kumari D/o Ram Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Punasa, Post Dantiwas, District Jalore (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Panch Kua, P.s. Bhinmal, District Jalore).
5. Ramesh Chandra Chaukidar S/o Tejaram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Panchuda Kallan, Via Bagri Nagar, Tehsil Sojat City, District Pali (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Social Schence At Gps, Pratap Nagar (Chainpura, P.s. Dhorimana, District Barmer).
6. Rekha Meena D/o Kanhaiya Lal Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Dhola Khera, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, 4 Dbn, P.s. Bhagwangarh, District Sri Ganganagar).
7. Ravindra Singh S/o Hukam Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Prajapati Mohalla, Daurda, Bhartpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gps, Nidhera Kala, P.s. Saipau, District Dholpur).
8. Mohan Singh S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Nagla Harsukh, Post Bijwari, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Sanskri At Gps, Nidera Kala, P.s. Saipau, District Dholpur).
9. Gulshan Parihar S/o Mangilal Parihar, Aged About 26 (2 of 7) [CW-17284/2018] Years, R/o Village Hariom Niwas, Outside Dhandpol Gate, Sojat, District Pali (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Gawar Phulad, P.s. Marwar Junction, District Pali).
10. Manoj Kumar S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Tanee, Via Bisau, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Social Science At Ggups, Bhadla, P.s. Panchu, District Bikaner).
11. Mahesh Kumar S/o Bhagirath Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Matwa Ki Dhani, Village Dadia, District Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Achlana, P.s. Bhinder, District Udaipur).
12. Mamta Kumari D/o Girshari Lal Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhani Jatala, Ward No. 04, Vpo Jeelo, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Bhumalawas, Morath, P.s. Mavli, District Udaipur).
13. Sandeep Maharia S/o Ramawatar Maharia, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Singodara, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Koswali Nadi, Swaroopsar, P.s. Panchu, District Bikaner).
14. Vinod Kumar Raigar S/o Hari Narayan Raigar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Raigaro Ka Mohalla, Saiwar, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Via C.r.p.f. Camp, Lalwash, District Udaipur (Raj.) (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Jagram Ki Dhani, Nokhara Charan, P.s. Phalodi, District Jodhpur).
15. Shrawan Ram S/o Dhanaram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Mandli Sadak, Ustaro, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Gayno Ki Dhani, Jaislan, P.s. Bap, District Jodhpur).
16. Dharm Pal S/o Rajee Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village 4 K.k., Post 5 K.k., Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Jagram Ki Dhani, Nokhara Charan, P.s. Phalodi, District Jodhpur).
17. Ram Niwas S/o Nimba Ram Megh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Dukiya, Post Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyan Bari, District Nagaur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level- I At Gps, Khiyaniyon Ki Dhani, Nokha Charnan, P.s.
(3 of 7) [CW-17284/2018] Phalodi, District Jodhpur).
18. Madaram Meghwal S/o Tilla Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bagarki, Post Riyan Setho Ki, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gups, Chandsar, Jatisar, P.s. Dechu, District Jodhpur).
19. Kailash Meghwal S/o Ram Narayan Meghwal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Meghwalal Ka Bas, Riyan Setho Ki, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Bhilon Ki Dhani, Jaisla, P.s. Bap, District Jodhpur).
20. Narendra Singh Jatav S/o Daya Chandra Jatav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 36, Azad Nagar, Purbiya Colony, O.t.c. Block, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Rani Dungla, P.s. Bhinder, District Udaipur).
21. Suresh Kumar Saini S/o Jagu Ram Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Dhani Nadiwalal, Village Gura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Shilwani Nadi, Dakipura, P.s. Maulasar, District Nagaur).
22. Shanti Kumari D/o Jeta Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Sankad, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Surta Ki Dhani, P.s. Sanchore, District Jalore).
23. Jagdish Chandar S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Ahamadpura, Tehsil Pilibanga,district Hanumanarh (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Laxmipura, Mugeriya, P.s. Shiv, District Barmer).
24. Dharmendra Tungariya S/o Kailash Chand Tungariya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Rathi Garden , Ghang- Chitar Road, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Somrado Ki Dhani, Ravniyana, P.s. Pipar City, District Jodhpur).
25. Narsingh Nagar S/o Naval Kishor Nagar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Ahinsa Circle, Hospital Road, Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-Ii Science Maths At Gups, Jani Nagar, P.s. Pipar City, District Jodhpur).
(4 of 7) [CW-17284/2018]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The 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 Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Udaipur.
4. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Udaipur.
5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.
6. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Barmer.
7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore.
8. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jalore.
9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.
10. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Sri Ganganagar.
11. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Dholpur.
12. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Dholpur.
13. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pali.
14. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Pali.
15. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner.
16. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bikaner.
17. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur.
18. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Jodhpur.
19. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur.
20. The District Education Officer, Elementary, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : -----
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/11/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the (5 of 7) [CW-17284/2018] 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 Divisionm 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 (6 of 7) [CW-17284/2018] 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 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 (7 of 7) [CW-17284/2018] 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.
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.
(DINESH MEHTA),J Himanshu/-160 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)