Disposed

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr v. State Education Dep Ors.

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2018CW/12261/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the limitation of res judicata does not bar the petitioners' claim for seniority based on a Coordinate Bench's adjudication in Suman Bai. The court closed the writ proceedings with a direction for the petitioners to file a comprehensive representation, which the State must decide within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ application closed; petitioners directed to file comprehensive representation; State directed to decide same within ten weeks.

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr Vs State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12261/2018

¶3

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr & Anr.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Education Dep Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajender Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶10

Order

¶11

09/07/2018

¶12

Counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajsthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, wherein this Court observed thus:

¶13

“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 which in turn is based on merit. Regard being had to all these facts, merely because one batch of employee approached

¶14

[CW-12261/2018]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.”

¶19

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners, within a

¶20

[CW-12261/2018]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶23

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised in the writ application.

¶24

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶25

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶26

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶27

Pooja/214

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr v. State Education Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh Nathwatandanr v. State Education Dep 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

Smt Shashibala Sharma W/O Shri Anil Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Ramraj Raigar Vs State Education Department Ors.

Hetram Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Services

Sandeep Son of Shri Jugal Kishor Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department

Kusumlata Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.