Allowed

Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2018CW/10219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed by approximately 26 candidates seeking appointment privileges based on a coordinate bench's decision in Om Prakash. The High Court disposed of the petition by relying on the precedent established in Om Prakash, Hemlata Shrimali, and Suman Bai, granting reliefs to similarly situated persons who approached the Jaipur Bench earlier. The court observed that entitlement to

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are directed to be treated in accordance with the order passed in Om Prakash case, granting reliefs to similarly situated persons in Jaipur Bench.

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10219/2018

¶3

Subhash S/o Shri Ram Kishor, Aged About 24 Years, VpoBhakrod, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Manjra Road, Baswani, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶4

Saroj Didel D/o Sukhveer Didel, Aged About 26 Years, 6/10 Namuman Bag Colony, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Purani School, Bhadana, Bana Ka, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶5

Sarita Choyal D/o Ramkishan, Aged About 27 Years, VpoDhehri, Jayal Nagaur, Presently Posted At Ggup School, Kasnau, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶6

Gangaram Kumhar S/o Bhuraram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo- Nolasiya, Nawa Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Kaliya Ka Bas (Deoli Kalan), Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶7

Dhanni Jangid D/o Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 36 Years, Brahmno Ka Mohalla Badu, Parbatsar, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Dwarka Dasota Ki Dhani, Bhadwa, Distt. Nagaur

¶8

Rakesh Kumar Tak S/o Madan Lal Tak, Aged About 28 Years, Block No. T-27-F, Railway Colony Goreri Goreri Chancha, Degana, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Aasan, Degana, Distt. Nagaur

¶9

Ranjana Kasniyan D/o Shivnarayan, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo- Gorau, Jayal, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Mohan Ji Ka Nadiya, Gugariyali, Jayal, Distt. Nagaur

¶10

Suman Bana S/o Dharm Pal Bana, Aged About 24 Years, Vpo- Bajoli, Makrana, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Kirad, Degana, Distt. Nagaur

¶11

Nemaram Gurjar S/o Chhotu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Near Railway Station, Ward No. 17, Degana, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Devnagar, Degana, Distt. Nagaur

¶12

Sunita D/o Shri Birma Ram Ghintala, Aged About 26 Years, Vpo- Baba Ki Dhani, Didwana, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Lakhi Ki Dhani (Bansa) Molasar, Distt. Nagaur

¶13

Chenaram Regar D/o Rampal Regar, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo- Manjhi, Degana, Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Kutiyasani Kallan, Degana, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶14

(2 of6)

¶15

[CW-10219/2018]

¶16

Bhagwani Mahicha D/o Chhitarmal, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo- Likhama Ka Bas, Dantaramgarh, Distt. Sikar, Presently Posted At Gps Burdko Ki Dhani, Chitawa, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶17

Madhu Devi D/o Sunga Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo Dhanipura, Riya Bari, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Jaswantpura, Riyabari, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶18

Vinita D/o Shri Rajendra Gaur, Aged About 27 Years, VpoSankhawas, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Dewasi Mohalla, Sankhawas, Mundwa, Distt- Nagaur

¶19

Nikita Vishnoi D/o Hari Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo- Lai, Merta City, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Lal, Merta City, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶20

Pooja D/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Adarsh Nagar, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Presently Posted At Gups Ber, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur

¶21

Sangeeta Kumari D/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 28 Years, Bajwa Surnka, Chirawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Presently Posted At Gups Ber, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur

¶22

Sayari Tandi D/o Gopal Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Rodu, Jayal, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Ggups Dhayawa, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶23

Dimpal Soni S/o Babulal Soni, Aged About 25 Years, Near Water Tank, Maliyon Ki Dhani, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Bhakron Ki Dhani, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶24

Farida Khatoon D/o Usman Gani Khan, Aged About 28 Years, Khan Mohalla, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Aaslani Talayi Chandpura, Kuchaman City, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶25

Sunita Devi D/o Harbhaj Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Igyasani, Degana, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Sanwaliyawas, Distt. Nagaur

¶26

Harendra Kumar S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Choyalo Ki Dhani, Nimbri, Makrana, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Gujron Ki Dhani, Sablpur, Makarana, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶27

Lalit Kishore Nehra S/o Ramniwas Nehra, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Balsamand, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur, Presently

¶28

(3 of6)

¶29

[CW-10219/2018]

¶30

Posted At Gups Jhekariya, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶31

Lalita D/o Shri Bhanwararam Rewar, Aged About 26 Years, Khanri, Didwana, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gps Jakharon Ki Dhani, Daudsar, Didwana, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶32

Sonu Jat D/o Sukhram Thori, Aged About 28 Years, VpoBhindasari, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur, Presently Posted At Gups Ghirroda Khara, Ladnu, Distt. Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶33

Sunita Kavai D/o Shri Mohan Singh Kavia, Aged About 27 Years, Dhani Churoli, Distt. Sikar, Presently Posted At Gps Bijapura (Prempura), Kuchaman City, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶34

----Petitioners

¶35

Versus

¶36

State ofRajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department ofEducation, Government ofRajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶37

The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government ofRajasthan, Jaipur

¶38

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner

¶39

The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Nagaur

¶40

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur

¶41

----Respondents

¶42

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore.

¶43

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order

¶44

03/08/2018

¶45

It is stated at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners that pertaining to the same recruitment, similarly circumstanced persons had approached Jaipur Bench of this Court by way of preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017 (Om Prakash & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the said petition is decided on 21^st of November, 2017 granting reliefs to those

¶46

(4 of6)

¶47

[CW-10219/2018]

¶48

petitioners in light of the judgment rendered in Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1^st of April, 2015) and also relying upon the adjudication made in case of Suman Bai & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2009 (1) WLC (Raj) 381]. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that present petition may also be decided in light of the judgment in case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶49

In 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:-

¶50

“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:

¶51

“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

¶52

(5 of6)

¶53

[CW-10219/2018]

¶54

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.

¶55

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 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.

¶56

In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the

¶57

(6 of6)

¶58

[CW-10219/2018]

¶59

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

¶60

Learned counsel for the petitioners 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.”

¶61

In view of the above, present writ petition of the petitioners

¶62

is also disposed of in the light of order passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶63

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶64

a.asopa/-18

Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash v. State of Rajasthan

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

Shankar Singh Rathore Vs the State of Rajashan

Dashrath Vs State

Jeth Nath Vs State

Binder Singh Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Ram Singh Jodha and Ors. Vs Secretary,Dept.of Education and Ors.

Khushbu Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.