Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurBantoo Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2020Author:Pushpendra Singh BhatiBench:Pushpendra Singh BhatiHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT\n                       JODHPUR\n               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5660/2020\n\n1.      Bantoo Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 29 Years,\n        Village And Post Sinsini, Tehsil Dig, District Bharatpur\n        (Raj.).\n2.      Yogmaya Meena D/o Phool Singh Meena, Aged About 35\n        Years, Near Hanuman Kundal Bijapur, Pali, Rajasthan.\n3.      Tamnna Meena D/o Ramavtar Meena, Aged About 30\n        Years, Nearby Bus Stand Mandawari, Dausa, District\n        Dausa.\n4.      Suman Meena D/o Ram Kishore Meena, Aged About 31\n        Years, 96 Jaga Ka Bas Patan, Jaipur, District Jaipur.\n5.      Shakuntla D/o Madha Ram, Aged About 38 Years,\n        Sukhaniya Bhukredi, District Churu, (Raj.).\n                                                                  ----Petitioners\n                                   Versus\n1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department\n        Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,\n        Rajasthan.\n2.      Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.\n3.      The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),\n        Jodhpur.\n4.      The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),\n        Pali.\n5.      The District Education Officer (Elementary Education),\n        Churu.\n                                                                ----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Tanwar Singh (on video call)\nFor Respondent(s)        :\n\n\n\n      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATIOrder\n\n04/08/20201.    In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been\n\nadvised to refrain from coming to the Courts.2.    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for\n\nthe   same    recruitment,       similarly       situated       petitioners   had\n\napproached Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v.(Downloaded on 05/08/2020 at 09:04:35 PM)(2 of 4)                 [CW-5660/2020]\n\n\n\nState of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017,\n\nwhich writ petition has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief\n\nto the petitioners in light of judgment in the case of Hemlata\n\nShrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition\n\nNo.3247/2015, decided on 01.04.2015 and relying upon the\n\nadjudication in the case ofSuman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan &\n\nOrs.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381 and, therefore, the present writ\n\npetition may also be decided in light of judgment in the case of\n\nOm Prakash (supra).3.In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the Bench at Jaipur after\n\nnoticing orders in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) andSuman Bai(supra) observed as under:-"Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset,\n     submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ\n     application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by\n     a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications\n     lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3247/2015:Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.,\n     decided on 1st Apri., 2015, relying upon the adjudication in the\n     case of Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.:\n     2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, observing thus:"5. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid\n       and the judgment of the Division Bench in Hari Ram and\n       the     subsequent       order       dated        21.7.2001     whereby\n       clarification application of the State Government was\n       dismissed, I find that the entitlement of the petitioner for\n       appointment on the basis of originally prepared merit list\n       cannot be denied. If admittedly the candidates, who are\n       lower in merit, have been granted appointment, those\n       who are above them in the merit cannot be denied such\n       right of appointment. Seniority as per the                   rules in the\n       case of direct recruitment on the post in question is(Downloaded on 05/08/2020 at 09:04:35 PM)(3 of 4)                  [CW-5660/2020]\n\n\nrequired to be assigned on the basis of placement of\ncandidates in the select list and when the selection is\ncommon and the merit list on the basis of which\nappointments were made is also common, right to secure\nappointment to both the set of employees thus flows from\ntheir selection which in turn is based on merit. Regard\nbeing had to all these facts, merely because one batch of\nemployee approached this Court later and another earlier,\nand both of them having been appointed, the candidates\nwho appeared 6 lower in merit cannot certainly be placed\nat a higher place in seniority. It was on this legal analogy\nthat Division Bench of this Court in Niyaz Mohd.Khan\n(supra) held that the petitioner therein entitled to be\nplaced in seniority in order of merit of common selection\namongst persons appointed in pursuance of the same\nselection with effect from the date ] person lower in order\nof   merit    than    the     petitioner        was     appointed    with\nconsequential benefits.6. I am not inclined to accept the argument of the learned\ncounsel for the respondents No.4 to 8 that the judgment\nof the learned Single Judge should be so read so as to\ninfer therefrom that though the petitioners would be\nentitled to claim appointment but not seniority above the\ncandidates who are already appointed even though they\nadmittedly are above them in the merit list. Infact, the\njudgment of the learned Single Judge merely reiterated\nthe direction of the Division Bench in Hari Ram (supra) in\nfavour   of   the    petitioners.       But     construction    of   that\njudgment in the manner in which the respondents want\nthis Court to do, would negat the mandate of the Rules 20\nand 21 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service\nRules, 1971, which requires seniority to be assigned as\nper the inter-se merit of 7 the candidates in the merit list\nbased on common selection. Even otherwise, no such\nintention of the Court is discernible from reading of that\njudgment. Mere appointment of the petitioner was a\nsufficient compliance of the judgment and not total(Downloaded on 05/08/2020 at 09:04:35 PM)(4 of 4)                    [CW-5660/2020]\n\n\n                                          compliance was the view taken by this Court also when\n                                          contempt petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.Question with regard to correct and wrong assignment of\n                                          seniority having arisen subsequent to appointment of the\n                                          petitioners would obviously give rise to a afresh cause of\n                                          action. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, therefore,\n                                          cannot   be   thrown      either      barred       by      resjudicata   or\n                                          otherwise improperly constituted.7. In the result, this        writ petition is allowed and the\n                                          respondents are directed to treat the petitioners senior to\n                                          respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit\n                                          list."Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits\n                                        that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of\n                                        the order dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein\n                                        above. Ordered accordingly."4.     In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition\n\n                                   filed by the petitioner is also disposed of in light of order passed in\n\n                                   the case of Om Prakash (supra).(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.156-Sudheer/-(Downloaded on 05/08/2020 at 09:04:35 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)