Single judge order dismissing a writ petition seeking appointment as a teacher. The petition, identical to one previously disposed of by a coordinate bench, was rejected as the petitioner failed to challenge the prior order or avail alternative remedies like contempt proceedings.
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. 3958/2020
Ram Niwas Meena S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Meena, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Meena R/o V And P Bamlas, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Satyarthi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order
20/04/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships’ may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition, call for and examine entire record of the case and
a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to comply with the order dated 8.1.2020 and give appointment to the petitioner on the basis of merit against unfilled becomes vacant because candidates did not join duties or left the services after joining, on the post of Teacher Grade III Level II Social Studies under ST Category in zila Parishad Churu in pursuance to Direct Recruitment of Teachers in Primary and Upper Primary Competitive Examination 2012 with all consequential benefits.
(2 of 4)
[CW-3958/2020]
b) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the Petitioner.”
The matter relates to the recruitment for the post of Teacher
Grade-III for which the advertisement was issued in the year 2013. In the first round of litigation, the petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writs No.19612/2017 (Ram Niwas Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) which was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 14.03.2018 which reads as under:-
“The writ application involves identical controversy, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, stands resolved in view of adjudication made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in a batch of writ applications, lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 750/2017 (Mukesh Kumar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.), vide order dated 9th February, 2017.
It is further contended that another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, at Jaipur Bench, while disposing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2194/2017, vide order dated 17th February, 2017, further clarified that the opinion in the case of Mukesh Kumar Tailor (Supra), shall be applicable in rem to all the candidates who are similarly situated and are not required to institute a separate writ applications.
The operative portion of the order dated 9th February, 2017, in the case of Mukesh Kumar Tailor (Supra), reads thus:
“In view of the fair stand taken by the respondent State and appreciating the exercise being undertaken by them to meet the situation in hand, all the abovementioned writ petitions are disposed of as under:-
a. The respondent-State shall workout the vacancies in each of the Zila Parishads as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the list shall be prepared of the candidate who have got more marks than the last candidate still working with the department in pursuance to the directions of this
(3 of 4)
[CW-3958/2020]
Court passed in Manju Choudhary’s case (supra).
b. Thereafter, the candidates as per the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available shall be called for the verification of the documents and the appointments shall be given to such like eligible candidates as per their merit equivalent to the vacancies available with the department.
c. This Court is aware that some of the candidates are bound to be left out even though they have got more marks than the last candidate but taking into account the limited number of vacancies, the said candidates shall have to try their luck in the next recruitment process afresh.
d. The said process by completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within 06 months from today. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.”
In view of the above, the instant writ application stands disposed off with a direction to the State-respondents to consider the case of petitioner, applying mutatis mutandis, the directions as extracted hereinabove and extend the same relief, if they are found eligible as directed by this Court vide order dated 9th February, 2017.
Stay application also stands closed.”
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.908/2017 & other connected appeals, decided on 08.01.2020).
Counsel for the respondent has opposed the writ petition. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly admittedly, in the first round of litigation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Coordinate bench of this court vide order dated
(4 of 4) [CW-3958/2020]
14.03.2018 and thereafter the petitioner has not challenged any order, if passed by the respondents and apart from it the petitioner is having remedy to file contempt petition with regard to order dated 14.03.2018 but he has not availed the same, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stand dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /55
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for and examine the record in a second writ petition when the identical controversy was dispo
Whether the petitioner has exhausted alternative remedies, specifically filing a contempt petition, regarding the order of the coordinate bench.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Niwas Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.Referred¶20
S.B. Civil Writs No.19612/2017 (Ram Niwas Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)
Mukesh Kumar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.Referred¶21
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 750/2017 (Mukesh Kumar Tailor Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.)
Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶34
Namonarayan Sharma & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ram Niwas Meena
State Of Rajasthan
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
