Writ petition by teachers challenging denial of seniority and pay fixation benefits despite equal merit in 2012 recruitment. Court orders state to grant benefits retroactively and decide within 30 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 17039/2018
(2 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
Dholpur (Raj.). (Posted As Teacher Grade Iii Level-I At Gps, Paguli, P.s. Bari, District Dholpur).
(3 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
(4 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
----Petitioners
Versus
(5 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary. For Respondent(s) :
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
01/11/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. – SBCW No.3082/2018, decided on 09.02.2018. The judgment reads as
under:-
“The controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed thus:
(6 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
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 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.
(7 of 7)
[CW-17039/2018]
barred by resjudicata or otherwise improperly constituted.
Applying the principle, as extracted hereinabove, to the facts of the case at hand the factual position emerges is that the petitioners participated in the recruitment process in response to advertisement issued by Zila Parishad in the year 2012, inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners earlier instituted writ applications and as a consequence of directions issued by this Court, the result was revised in the month of November, 2016; resulting into appointment of the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level I/Level-II).
Undeniably, the petitioners have already been accorded appointment. However, State-respondents have declined seniority and other benefits to the petitioners from the date the petitioners became entitled on account of revision of the result while candidates lower in merit to the petitioners have been accorded those benefits. Thus, the petitioners have claimed benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis from the date juniors to the petitioners, have been accorded in the same recruitment process of the year 2012.
Accordingly, the State-respondents are directed to extend the benefit of pay fixation and seniority on notional basis to the petitioners from the date junior(s) to the petitioner(s) has/have been accorded with reference to the same recruitment process of the year of 2012.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the issue of petitioners in terms of the judgment of Surja Ram (Supra) by a speaking order within a period of 30 days from today.
(DINESH MEHTA),J.
Sumit-471
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners entitled to seniority and pay fixation benefits from date juniors appointed in same recruitment
Whether entitlement denied due to lower merits of other candidates appointed later
Whether direction to respondents to pass speaking order within 30 days
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶70
Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. – SBCW No.3082/2018, decided on 09.02.2018
Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Distinguished¶72
Suman Bai & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Niyaz Mohd.KhanReferred¶73
Niyaz Mohd.Khan
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Suman Matwa And Others
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department And Others
Dinesh Meeta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
