Deepti Chinaria Daughter of Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria Vs Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

[2026:RJ-JP:10267-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 205/2026

Deepti Chinaria Daughter Of Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria, Aged About 44 Years, Informatics Assistant, Office Of Zonal Chief Engineer (Ajmer Zone), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer And Resident Of House No. 96/28-A, Hariom Marg, Bhajan Ganj, Ajmer.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer - 305004 Through Its Managing Director.

¶8

The Secretary (Admn.), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Makadwali Road, Ajmer 305004.

¶9

Mr. Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi, Office Of Executive Engineer (M And P), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bhilwara.

¶10

Ramesh Kumar Son Of Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 111, Narsingh Vihar, Gokulpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur- 302012.

¶11

Neelima Gupta Wife Of Shri Umesh Mittal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 49-B, Hbu Nagar-Ext, Pushkar Road, Ajmer.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Ashish Kishore Saksena
For Respondent(s)	: Dr. S. Roy
	Mr. Abhishek Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶15

Judgment

¶16

10/03/2026

¶17

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.2.2026 whereby the Hon’ble Single Judge while allowing the

¶18

[2026:RJ-JP:10267-DB]

¶19

[SAW-205/2026]

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

application filed by the respondent no.5, modified the interim order dated 17.7.2023.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission that the appellant is working on the post of Informatics Assistant since the date of her promotion on the same post w.e.f. 25.04.2018 against the vacancy of the year 2018-19 in pursuance of the DPC held on 25.04.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the first seniority list was prepared for the post of Informatics Assistant in which the appellant was kept at serial No.8. However, subsequently on account of filing of several representations, the seniority list was amended on the basis of recommendation of re-review DPC for the vacancy of the year 2018-19. It is submitted that the recommendation of the rereview DPC caused prejudice to the present appellant as she has been moved down at S.No.104 from S.No.8 in the seniority, which was also the provisional seniority list. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was an interim order operating in her favour granted by this Court on 17.07.2023, whereby the Hon’ble Single Bench had upheld the promotion of the appellant to the post of Informatics Assistant pursuant to recommendation of DPC dated 25.04.2018 and the respondents were restrained from acting upon the provisional seniority list dated 30.6.2023

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned order has been passed by the Court on the application filed by the respondent no.5 seeking modification. However, while passing the order impugned, it was clarified that the interim stay order dated 17.7.2023 shall apply and operate only in respect of the appellant,

¶24

[2026:RJ-JP:10267-DB]

¶25

[SAW-205/2026]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

but the AVVNL was granted liberty to proceed further with the provisional senioirty list dated 30.6.2023 in respect of all other employees, excluding the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the interim order was granted protecting the appellant’s right, then by no means of law, the subsequent provisional promotional seniority list dated 30.06.2023 ought to have operated as it would automatically mean that the appellant’s candidature would either be excluded or would be treated at Serial No.104.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the lis is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Single Bench, however, if the AVVNL is permitted to operate the seniority list dated 30.6.2023, then the petitioner’s case is likely to be prejudiced. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the seniority list of 30.06.2023 has been permitted to be operated while excluding the case of the appellant and thus they are bound by the orders passed by this Court.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of the rival contentions, this Court finds that initially appellant was placed at Serial No. 8 in the earlier seniority list issued by the respondent-AVVNL on 01.04.2019, which was prepared pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC held on 25.04.2018. In the review DPC, the petitioner’s position at Serial No. 8 was maintained, however, in the re-review DPC dated 16.06.2023, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 104 in the

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[2026:RJ-JP:10267-DB]

¶32

[SAW-205/2026]

¶33

seniority list, which caused prejudice to the appellant. This Court further finds that if without final adjudication, the respondents are permitted to undertake promotional exercise, excluding the appellant, then too, there shall be multiplicity of the proceedings.

¶34

Therefore, in order to enable the process of final adjudication before the Hon’ble Single Bench and to simplify the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the impugned order dated 27.2.2026 and the interim order dated 17.7.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench by directing the respondent AVVNL that if any promotional exercise is undertaken by the respondent AVVNL, the appellant’s candidature shall be provisionally considered by treating her to be at Serial No. 8. However, the result of the DPC shall be kept in a sealed cover and such result in sealed cover shall remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. Further, it is ordered that participation of appellant’s candidature in the exercise of consideration shall not create any right or equity in favour of the appellant.

¶35

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶36

(PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶37

52-Shahenshah/Nitin/-

Deepti Chinaria Daughter of Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepti Chinaria Daughter of Shri Vinod Kumar Chinaria v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer, Phed Division Vs Sachdeva Metal Works

Periphery Sangharsh Samiti Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Rajendra Chaturvedi S/O Shri Suraj Mal (Conductor)

M/S Bhawani Silicate Industries Vs Union of India

M/S. Bhawani Silicate Industries Vs Union of India