Petitioners seeking appointment and accurate seniority placement on posts for which they were recruited alongside others. Court resolved petition by applying precedent, directing respondent to treat petitioners' seniority based on merit list placement as per Rules 20 and 21 of Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971.
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. 17225/2018
(2 of 5)
[CW-17225/2018]
Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : - - - –
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/11/2018
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that for the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had
(3 of 5)
[CW-17225/2018]
approached Jaipur Bench of this Court in Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, which writ petition has been decided on 21.11.2017 granting relief to the petitioners in light of judgment in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of judgment in the case of Om Prakash (supra).
In the 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:-
“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: “
“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
(4 of 5)
[CW-17225/2018]
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.
(5 of 5)
[CW-17225/2018]
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.
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.”
In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition filed by the petitioners is also disposed of in light of order passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).
(DINESH MEHTA),J
Himanshu/-145
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition regarding appointment and seniority of employees recruited for the same post should be decided in light of the order in Om Prakash & Ors.
Whether seniority can be denied to petitioners who were appointed based on a common merit list solely because another batch of petitioners approached the Court earlier or later.
Whether the assignment of seniority based on the order of merit in the common selection list is compliant with Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶54
Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017
Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶374042
Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015
Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶374042
Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
5 provisions across 5 enactments
Satyapal Singh Yadav
Narendra Singh
Mukesh Kumar Kumawat
Mahendra Kumar Choudhary
Sunita
Chandra Ram
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
