Point of law: Question with regard to correct and wrong assignment of seniority having arisen subsequent to appointment of the petitioners would obviously give rise to a afresh cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a matter involving identical issue i.e. Satdev Vs. Sate of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9899/2019), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 25.07.2020 passed following order :-

“This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord notional benefits from the date appointment was given to similarly situated persons in the year 2013.

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the LDC recruitment 2013 (Annex.1), the petitioner participated in the recruitment and was selected, however, appointment was not accorded on account of pendency of litigation before this Court, wherein, the petitioners who were contractual employees, had questioned termination of their services as contractual employees. After the litigation was over, by order dated 4.9.2017 (Annex.2),the petitioners were accorded appointment pursuant to the selections held in the year 2013.

It is inter alia indicated that petitioner was eligible in the year 2013, was duly selected pursuant to the selection process held by the respondents and was not accorded appointment only on account of pendency of litigation, which has apparently nothing to do with the eligibility of the petitioner and, therefore, according the appointment in the year 2017 and not providing the petitioner notional benefits, fixation etc. w.e.f. the date similarly situated persons were accorded appointment, are not justified. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21214/2017, decided on 21.11.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondents resisted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that as the petitioner has been accorded appointment in the year 2017, he is not entitled to any relief and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was eligible in the year 2013 and his name found place in the list of selected candidates in the year 2013 itself, however, on account of pending litigation which apparently had no relation with the eligibility of the petitioner, the appointment was not accorded to the petitioner and ultimately in the year 2017, the same was accorded to the petitioner, for which act of respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalized.

In case of Om Prakash (supra), in somewhat similar circumstances, relief was granted to the petitioners therein in light of judgment in the case of Hemlata Shrimali & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3247/2015, decided on 1.4.2015 and relying upon the adjudication in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381.

In the case of Om Prakash (supra), the Bench at Jaipur after noticing orders in the case of Hemlata Shrimali (supra) and Suman Bai (supra) observed and ordered as under:-

“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:

“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 where by 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