Partly allowed

Sanjeev Singh v. State Education and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2011CW/11331/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered writ petitions regarding grievances about the place of posting. Relying on a recent order in a similar batch, the Court issued directions for the respondents to ensure non-arbitrary posting orders, consider fresh representations, and protect petitioners already posted from prejudice while remedies are pursued.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to consider individual matters non-arbitrarily per the order dated 09.11.2011, to consider fresh representations, and clarifying that earlier joining is not prejudicial to seekin

Sanjeev Singh Vs State Education and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

SBCWP NO. 11331/2011 Sanjeev Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Alongwith connected matter

¶2

¶3

(1)

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11331/2011 .

¶5

Sanjeev Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

(2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11332/2011 .

¶7

Shiv Prasad Nimiwal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶8

Date of Order :: 11^th November 2011.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

¶10

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, for the petitioner/s. Dr. Gopal Raj Calla, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. <<>>

¶11

BY THE COURT :

¶12

These writ petitions relating to the common nature grievance have been considered together. The learned Government Counsel Dr. Gopal Raj Calla, who is appearing for the Department concerned, has been requested to and has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioners is similar and akin to that of the petitioners in the batch of petitions led by CWP No. 10634/2011 : Vinod Kumar Vs. State (Education) & Ors., decided on 09.11.2011 and similar nature directions may be issued in relation to the present petitioners too for consideration of their grievance regarding place of posting. The learned counsel further submits that looking to the fact that the last date of joining was 09.11.2011, the petitioners have, of course, joined the services at the place assigned to them but they have made representations regarding their place of posting which are pending for consideration with the respondents.

¶14

SBCWP NO. 11331/2011 Sanjeev Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Alongwith connected matter

¶15

¶16

Having regard to the overall circumstances and the orders passed in relation to the other matters, it appears appropriate to issue similar nature directions in these petitions to the extent and and in the manner as indicated infra:

¶17

(A) The respondents shall look into the individual matters with reference to the requirements of the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2011 taking it applicable to all the similar and akin cases; and shall ensure that all the posting orders are issued without the vice of arbitrariness after taking policy decision at the earliest.

¶18

(B) The petitioners, whether made representation earlier or not, shall be at liberty to make the representation afresh to the respondents stating their grievance and the respondents shall be expected to consider each representation on its merit and take decision curbing against any vice of discrimination.

¶19

(C) It is made clear that earlier joining by the petitioners shall not be of prejudice to them in taking recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law if any grievance remains after the respondents frame the policy and take the decision on the individual's representation.

¶20

These writ petitions are partly allowed to the extent

¶21

indicated above. No costs.

¶22

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J .

¶23

/Mohan/

¶24

SBCWP NO. 11331/2011 Sanjeev Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Alongwith connected matter

¶25

¶26

(2)

¶27

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11332/2011 .

¶28

Shiv Prasad Nimiwal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶29

Date of Order :: 11^th November 2011.

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

¶31

Mr. Vikas Bijarnia, for the petitioner. Dr. Gopal Raj Calla, Govt. Counsel, for the respondents. <<>>

¶32

This writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent indicated in the common order made in CWP No. 11331/2011 : Sanjeev Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶33

By Order,

¶34

COURT MASTER

¶35

/Mohan/

Sanjeev Singh v. State Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Singh v. State Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash and Ors. Vs Municipal Board Bhadra and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Vs State Education and Ors.

Dilip Singh Vs Raj. State Road Trans. Corpn. and Anr.

Moti Mala Vs State Education and Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Prahlad Singh Chundawat Vs State of Raj. and Ors.