HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 760/2021

Renu Tiwari D/o Kalyan Mal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years,

Behind Jain Temple, Shyam Vihar, Bhilwara. (Presently Posted At

Gsss Shivnagar, Gageda, Block Hurda, District Bhilwara).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural

Development And Panchayati Raj Department,

Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.

The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bhilwara.

4.

The District Education Officer, Elementary, Bhilwara.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Hanuman Singh

For Respondent(s)

:

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

19/01/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in present writ petition is squarely covered by the

judgment rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case

of Surja Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. – SBCW

No.3082/2018, decided on 09.02.2018. The judgment reads

asunder:-

“The controversy raised in the instant writ

application is no more res-integra in view of the

adjudication made in the case of Suman Bai & Anr. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.: 2009 (1) WLC (Raj.) 381,

wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed

thus:

“5. Upon consideration of the arguments

aforesaid and the judgment of the Division

Bench in Hari Ram and the subsequent order

(2 of 4)

[CW-760/2021]

dated

21.7.2001

whereby

clarification

mapplication 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.

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.

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 candidates who are already

appointed even though they admittedly are

above them in the merit list. Infact, 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 s