Allowed

Devi Narayan Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC23 Nov 2017CW/21432/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Judge allowed writ petition treating petitioners senior to four respondents based on merit list placement in common selection, relying on prior coordinate bench order and Hari Ram judgment to correct seniority assignment.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to treat petitioners senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list.

Devi Narayan Meena and Ors. Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21432 / 2017

¶3

Devi Narayan Meena S/o Bhura Ram Meena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o P.No. 36, Ram Nagar Extension Colony, Near Gate No. 3, Rajvilas Hotel, Goner Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

Budhram S/o Ganga Vishan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Pithrasar, Post Jaisingh Desar (Magra), Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶5

Manoj Kumar Bishnoi S/o Bhanwar Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village and Post Udsar, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶6

Chhotu Ram Gurjar S/o Sonaram Gurjar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Gonakasar, Delhi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Ashok Kumar Khileri S/o Hazari Ram, R/o Village Dharnok, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶8

Manish Harivansh S/o Sita Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o C- 226, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Sonaram Solanki S/o Shiv Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 30, Hanwant Colony, Balotara, Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶10

Priyanka Agrawal D/o Radheshyam, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 4-B-14, Dada Bari, Sector-4, Ward No. 15, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Petitioners

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶14

The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶15

The Director (Primary Education), Bikaner.

¶16

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Rajsamand

¶17

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pali.

¶18

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer.

¶19

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Tonk.

¶20

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jhalawar.

¶21

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Rajsamand.

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CW-21432/2017]

¶24

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Pali.

¶25

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Barmer.

¶26

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Tonk.

¶27

The District Education Officer (Elementary), Jhalawar.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) :

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶31

23/11/2017

¶32

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 1^st 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:

¶33

“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

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[CW-21432/2017]

¶36

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.

¶37

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

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CW-21432/2017]

¶40

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.

¶41

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.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order dated 24^th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.

¶43

Ordered accordingly.

¶44

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶45

SS/162

Devi Narayan Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Narayan Meena and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dalchand Gupta Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Deependra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Madan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

M/S Hema Construction Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Umar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rodu Lal Vs State