The High Court dismissed Special Leave Petitions challenging the Division Bench judgment in Vimla Devi Saini regarding seniority. The matters were disposed of by the Apex Court, confirming the High Court judgment and finding no reason to provide further directions.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 459/2020
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 361/2021
Versus
Mukesh Bhati S/o Sh. Poonam Chand Bhati, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Behind Nanesh Marble Factory, Shiv Basti, Nikha Road, Gangashahar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(2 of 5)
[SAW-459/2020]
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 308/2021
----Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar Saini S/o Kajormal Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Phed Quarter No. W9, Near Discom Main Gate, New Power House Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Neeraj Rajput S/o Purendra Singh Rajput, Aged About 31 Years, 72, Rajput Colony, Sitahera, Alwar, Rajasthan Currently Posted At Aen, Phed, Sub-Division Bap, Dist. Jodhpur
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 317/2021
----Appellants
(3 of 5)
[SAW-459/2020]
Versus
Reena Karmwani D/o Sh. Shyam Sundar Karmwani, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 28, Azad Nagar, Pushkar Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan Currently Posted As Jen, Office Of The Aen (City), Public Health And Engineering Department, Sub - Division Production, Bhilwara , Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Sohan Lal S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Anwala Ka Basm Antroli Kalan, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
----Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Singh Kuntal S/o Jagdish, Prasad Kuntal, R/o On Sonkh, Bharatpur Main Road, Tirkha Thok, Near Bijli Ghar, Ajan, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Currently Posted As Jen, Public Health And Engineering Department, Sub-Division Raipur, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(4 of 5)
[SAW-459/2020]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sridhar Mehta.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment
07/07/2021
Defects pointed out by the office are over-ruled.
Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in present batch of appeals is covered by the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7330/2016 (Vimla Devi V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 20.11.2017). The order passed in the case of Vimla Devi was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2019 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.877/2019. The matter was taken to the Apex Court by filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7797/2021 and the Apex Court, vide its order dated 01.07.2021, has confirmed the judgment passed by the Division
Bench in the following terms:-
“The present bunch of matters were disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court relying upon its earlier decision dated 30.09.2019 passed in State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Vimla Devi Saini , D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.877 of 2019.
In Vimla Devi Saini’s case, after considering Rule 6(1A) of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Public Health Engineering Branch) Rules, 1967, the Division Bench of the High Court observed as under:
“In the present case, the respondent is possessing degree of B.E. Even if she applied against diploma category, the rules permit her to seek change of the category from diploma to degree quota, of course, subject to availability of vacancies and further subject to a rider that her seniority amongst the Junior Engineer (Degree Holders) shall be determined from the date
(5 of 5)
[SAW-459/2020]
of occurrence of vacancy against which she would be appointed on the post of Junior Engineer (Degree Holder) and one third of her previous experience shall be counted as experience on the post of Junior Engineer for the purpose of promotion to the next higher post. It has not been disputed that there is indeed vacancy available in the quota of Degree Holders Junior Engineer.”
We have Ms. Pragati Neekhra, learned Advocate for the State and Mr. Arvind Varma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for some of the respondents on caveat.
We do not see any reason to entertain these petitions in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136(1) of the Constitution.
These Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
In this view of the matter, the controversy no longer survives. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed in light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
4 & 9 to 14 - a.asopa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Special Leave Petitions should be entertained in light of the Supreme Court's order confirming the Division Bench judgment in Vimla Devi Saini.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Vimla Devi SainiFollowed¶72
State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Vimla Devi Saini, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.877 of 2019
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.7797/2021Referred¶70
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Rajasthan
Himanshu Khandelwal
State Of Rajasthan
Mukesh Bhati
Indrajit Mahanty
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
