Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Bija Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2025CW/11896/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed of following Om Prakash precedent on seniority based on merit list in common selection under Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be treated senior as per merit list in common selection, with consequential benefits. ¶¶32

Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Bija Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11896/2024

¶3

Banwari Lal S/o Sh. Bija Ram, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Village Post Dadiya Rampura Via Reengus Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education Department (Elementary Education), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Bharat Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	GK SHarma,AGC

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

20/02/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in this petition has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015 on 01.04.2015 and Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017 on 21.11.2017.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had approached this Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra),

¶16

[CW-11896/2024]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

whereby the Court has granted relief to the petitioners in light of judgment passed in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381 , therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in light of judgment passed in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶19

In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after noticing orders passed in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and Suman Bai (supra) observed as under:-

¶20

“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:

¶21

“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.

¶22

[CW-11896/2024]

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that instant writ application be also disposed

¶28

[CW-11896/2024]

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

off in terms of the order dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above.

¶31

Ordered accordingly.”

¶32

In view of the submissions made herein above, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of, in light of order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur, in the case of Om Prakash (supra).

¶33

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶35

KuD/197

Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Bija Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Lal S/O Sh. Bija Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State Education Departmentors

Devendra Sikhwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Narendra Kumar Bairwa Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

State of Raj Vs the Presiding Officer Labour Anr.

Vinod Kumar Diwatch Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.