Jaipur (Raj.) vs State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Education Depart-

Judgment

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Education Depart- ment (Elementary Education), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Sikar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

: Mr. Bharat Saini with Mr. Prashant Saini : Mr. Saumil Sharma for Mr. G.K. Sharma, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/03/2025

1. 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 Shri- mali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Peti- tion 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.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same recruitment, similarly situated petitioners had ap- proached this Court in the case of Om Prakash (supra), whereby [2025:RJ-JP:13518] (2 of 4) [CW-11489/2024] 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).

3. 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:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very out- set, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudi- cation 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: “5. Upon consideration of the arguments afore- said 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 appoint- ment on the basis of originally prepared merit list cannot be denied. If admittedly the candi- dates, 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 ques- tion 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. Re- [2025:RJ-JP:13518] (3 of 4) [CW-11489/2024] gard being had to all these facts, merely be- cause 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 senior- ity 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. 6. 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 candi- dates 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 Di- vision Bench in Hari Ram (supra) in favour of the petitioners. But construction of that judg- ment 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 Educa- tion Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, which re- quires 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 appoint- ment 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 im- properly constituted. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the peti- tioners senior to respondents No.4 to 8 as per their placement in the merit list.” [2025:RJ-JP:13518] (4 of 4) [CW-11489/2024] Learned counsel for the petitioners further sub- mits that instant writ application be also disposed off in terms of the order dated 24th May, 2017, as extracted herein above. Ordered accordingly.”

4. 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).

5. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /464