Dismissed

Idrees Khan Adn Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC31 May 2018CW/11789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of seniority to petitioners appointed later. Single Judge held entitlement to seniority flows from common merit list. Petition dismissed in favor of seniors as affirmed in coord and follow permissible relief principles.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners denied seniority over respondents 4 to 8 as per merit list placement. Order dated April 1, 2015 cited.

Idrees Khan Adn Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 11789/2018

¶3

Idrees Khan S/o Shri Hussain Khan, B/c Musalmaan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Rabhana, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶4

Mahmmad Nasim S/o Shri Mohmmad Ilyas, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Pathredi, Post Tapukada, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶5

Dataram S/o Shri Mangi Lal, R/o Vpo Chandoli, Dist. Alwar (Raj.).

¶6

Nishar Ahamad Ali Khan S/o Shri Umardeen Khan, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Vpo Boontoli, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶7

Rukmo Deen S/o Shri Sumer Khan, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Village Suheta, Jindoli, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶8

Jamshed Khan S/o Shri Asru Khan, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Village Bagkhala ( Bagthala), Post Mancha, Tehsil Kishangarh Bass, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶9

Dinesh Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Chhaju Ram, B/c Bairwa, R/o Village Toda Gyan Singh, Post Toda Nagar, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar Presently Reside At A-128, Vijaynagar, District Alwar (Raj.).

¶10

Kalila D/o Shri Mumtaj Ali, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Halwai Ki Gali, Sarwad, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶11

Akbar Khan S/o Shri Nasru Khan, B/c Musalmaan, R/o Vpo Hingota, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶12

Renu Meena D/o Shri Surgyan Singh Meena B/c Meena, R/o Village Gumanpura, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶16

The Secretary Cum Commissioner , Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-11789/2018]

¶19

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

¶20

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar (Raj.).

¶21

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore (Raj.).

¶22

The District Elementary Education Officer, Jalore (Raj.)

¶23

The District Elementary Education Officer, Alwar (Raj.)

¶24

----Respondents

¶25

For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) :

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶27

Order

¶28

31/05/2018

¶29

Representative of 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 April, 2015, relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, observing thus:

¶30

“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

¶31

(3 of 4)

¶32

[CW-11789/2018]

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.”

¶36

(4 of 4) [CW-11789/2018]

¶37

It is further urged that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order dated 1^st April, 2015, as extracted herein above.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶40

SS/267

Idrees Khan Adn Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idrees Khan Adn 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

Vijay Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jamshed Khan and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sushila Dhaka Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Satveer Singh Vs State Education Dep Ors.

Uma Mathur Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Suman Dhabash Vs State of Raj and Anr.