Allowed

Sanjay Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2018CW/7057/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court for Rajasthan disposed of a writ petition concerning the seniority of school teachers. Relying on the precedent Om Prakash, the Court held that seniority must be assigned based on the inter-se merit of candidates in a common merit list, allowing petitioners to be treated as senior to later appointees.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are treated as senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list.

Sanjay Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 7057/2018

¶3

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Birbal Ram, R/o Village 15 Z, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan, presently posted at Government Upper Primary School, Aryawala 28 FF, Khayaliwala, Block Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶4

Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Ram, R/o Hosue No. 101, Street No. 2, Pooja Colony, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, presently posted At Government Upper Primary School, 26 FF, Kanwarpura, Block Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Rural & Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶10

The District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶11

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶15

Order

¶16

01/08/2018

¶17

It is stated at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioners that pertaining to the same recruitment, similarly circumstanced

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-7057/2018]

¶20

persons had approached Jaipur Bench of this Court by way of preferring S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017 (Om Prakash & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and the said petition is decided on 21^st of November, 2017 granting reliefs to those petitioners in light of the judgment rendered in Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1^st of April, 2015) and also relying upon the adjudication made in case of Suman Bai & Anr. V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2009 (1) WLC (Raj) 381]. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that present petition may also be decided in the light of judgment in case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶21

In 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:-

¶22

“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:

¶23

“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

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

[CW-7057/2018]

¶26

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 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.

¶27

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

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CW-7057/2018]

¶30

afresh cause of action. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, cannot be thrown either barred by resjudicata or otherwise improperly constituted.

¶31

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.”

¶32

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.

¶33

Ordered accordingly.”

¶34

In view of the above, present writ petition of the petitioners is also disposed of in the light of order passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶35

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶36

Bharti/10

Sanjay Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Singh Purawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Niwas Gurjar Vs Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Manohar Lal Kumawat Vs Union of India and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Vinod Gadhwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Ram and Ors. Vs State and Ors.