Single Judge allowed the writ petition allowing assignment of seniority to the petitioner based on her placement in the merit list relative to other appointed candidates, applicable from the date lower merit candidates were appointed.
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 Writs No. 7039/2018
Nirmala Kumari D/o Shri Jagdev Singh W/o Mr. Madan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o House No. 10/179, New Housing Board, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
04/04/2018
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, observing thus:
“5. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and the
(2 of 4)
[CW-7039/2018]
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.
(3 of 4)
[CW-7039/2018]
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 dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.
(4 of 4)
[CW-7039/2018]
Ordered accordingly.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/198
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to assignment of seniority based on merit list placement vis-a-vis other appointed candidates.
Whether the jurisdiction is barred by res judicata given a coordinate bench has already decided a batch of writ applications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶15
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 3247/2015: Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶15
Suman Bai & Anr. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381
Niyaz Mohd.KhanExplained¶16
Niyaz Mohd.Khan (supra)
Nirmala Kumari D/o Shri Jagdev Singh
State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Education Secretary
The Director, Primary Education, Bikaner
The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu
The District Education Officer (Primary), Churu
Veerendra Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
