SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR 
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SUNIL BENIWAL, JJ.
Sudharshan Mundra S/o Suresh Kumar Mundra - Appellant
Versus
Goverdhan Kumar S/o Masaru Ram - Respondent
D.B. Special Application Writ No. 516/2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Muktesh Maheshwari, Gaurav Ranka

Seniority for promotions must be determined based on the date of confirmation as per Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, not solely on merit.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Seniority determination - The court addressed the criteria for preparing the seniority list for promotion from LDC to UDC, emphasizing adherence to Rule 285, which mandates seniority based on the date of confirmation, not merely on merit. (Paras 7, 10, 12, 13)

(B) Legal interpretation - The court clarified that the date of confirmation is distinct from the date of joining, and seniority must reflect actual service rendered. (Paras 10, 14)

(C) Administrative guidelines - The court noted that deviations from established rules could lead to arbitrary outcomes and unfair treatment of candidates. (Paras 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
The appellants challenged the legality of a seniority list prepared for promotions from LDC to UDC, arguing that it improperly prioritized merit over the date of confirmation as per the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the learned Single Judge's order, affirming that seniority should be determined based on the date of confirmation in accordance with Rule 285.

Issues: The main issues were the criteria for determining seniority and the interpretation of Rule 285 regarding confirmation versus merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that seniority must be based on the date of confirmation as per Rule 285, emphasizing that merit should only be considered in specific circumstances outlined in the proviso.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, read with Article 225 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Special Appeal may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:

[1] the impugned Judgment dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed and set aside.

[2] The Respondent authority may kindly be directed to prepare the seniority list for promotion from LDC to UDC based on the date of confirmation in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and grant the promotion to the appellants accordingly;

[3] Any other order or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the appellant.”

2. The appellants, in the instant appeal, have assailed the legality and correctness of the order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 13204/2024 filed by the Respondents No.1 to 5 (writ petitioners) against the Respondents No.6 to 9 (respondent authorities) herein was allowed, and the respondent authorities were directed to re-frame the seniority list for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (Senior Assistant) by taking into account their position in the merit list, prepared by the District Establishment Committee (in short, “DEC”) at the time of their appointment, and not their date of joining/appointment.

3. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that a direct recruitment process i.e. Lower Division Clerk Direct Recruitment, 2013 was conducted by the Zila Parishad, Udaipur through DEC, in which eligible candidates applied. Subsequently, a merit list dated 25.06.2013 was prepared by the DEC, and the candidates selected for the post of Lower Division Clerk (Junior Assistant) (in short, “LDC”) pursuant to said recruitment were allotted different Panchayat Samities vide order dated 28.06.2013. Upon the allotment, the selected candidates were appointed to various Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samities vide order dated 01.07.2013. After the said Appointment/Joining the candidates were to serve a probation period of two years. After successful completion of the probation period, they were to be confirmed in service, and work at their respective postings.

3.1. Subsequently, while the seniority among these direct recruits was under consideration, the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department issued a letter dated 15.11.2022 containing directions for determination of the seniority of LDCs. It was clarified therein that in cases where two or more persons were appointed in the same grade or category under the same order, or were appointed pursuant to orders of the same date, then the seniority of such candidates shall be determined as per date of joining and if date of joining is same then it shall be determined in the same order in which their names appear in the merit list prepared by the DEC. Further clarifications and guidelines on the same subject were issued by the respondent authority vide letters dated 25.11.2022 and 17.02.2023.

3.2. A provisional seniority list was published by the Zila Parishad, Udaipur on 11.01.2023, as per information received from Panchayat Samities and record available as on 01.04.2022, and the Objections were duly invited by the said authority. Thereafter, the final seniority list was issued on 27.02.2023 for LDCs posted in various Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads.

3.3. Due to variations in the method adopted by different Zila Parishads in determining the seniority, a clarification was again issued by the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department on 07.07.2023, stating therein that determination of seniority vide an earlier letter dated 17.02.2023, was directed to be ascertained as per Rule 285 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereina

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top