The High Court resolved the dispute by relying on prior Division Bench adjudications, holding that the petitioner is entitled to seniority as per merit list placement and allowing the writ petition.
Respondents directed to treat the petitioner senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list.
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 BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2481 / 2018
Kameshwar Dayal S/o Shri Ram Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Basant Vihar Colony Near STC College, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) At Present Working on the Post of Teacher Grade-III At Government Upper Primary School, Dayawali Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Vyas For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
06/02/2018
Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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,
(2 of 4)
[CW-2481/2018]
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 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.
counsel for the respondents No.4 to 8 that the judgment
(3 of 4)
[CW-2481/2018]
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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order
(4 of 4)
[CW-2481/2018]
dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.
Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/112
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to seniority based on merit list placement under res judicata.
Whether earlier adjudication bars the writ petition regarding seniority assignment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶17
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3247/2015: Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶17
Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Niyaz Mohd.KhanRelied on¶21
Niyaz Mohd.Khan
Kameshwar Dayal
State of Rajasthan
VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
