Dismissed

Rachna Sharma v. State Personnel Departmentors

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2015CW/1223/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-allotment of a government teacher's preferred district. The court held that administrative instructions are not legally binding and the use of a computerized random method justified the decision, rejecting the petitioner's claim of arbitrariness.

What did the court decide?

The petition and the stay application were dismissed. No direction was given for fresh allotment of the district.

Rachna Sharma Vs State Personnel Departmentors — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 1223/ 15. 1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAI PUR

¶3

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 1223/ 15.

¶4

Rachna Shar ma – Pet i t i oner . Vs. St at e of Raj ast han & Or s. - Respondent s.

¶5

DATE OF ORDER: 23RD MARCH, 2015. PRESENT HON' BLE MS. JUSTI CE BELA M. TRI VEDI

¶6

Mr . R. D. Meena f or t he pet i t i oner / s. O R D E R

¶7

Thi s i s second r ound of l i t i gat i on f i l ed by t he pet i t i oner , by whi ch she has chal l enged t he or der dat ed 30^th Oct ober , 2014, passed by t he r espondent No. 2 r ej ect i ng her r epr esent at i on made by her pur suant t o t he

¶8

or der dat ed 22. 9. 14 passed by t he Coor di nat e Bench i n SBCWP No. 9175/ 14.

¶9

I n t he i nst ant case i t appear s t hat t he pet i t i oner was appoi nt ed on t he post of LDC, on her cl ear i ng Phase- I and Phase- I I exami nat i on conduct ed by t he RPSC. The

¶10

gr i evance of t he pet i t i oner i s t hat t he pet i t i oner has been post ed i n t he of f i ce of Di r ect or Pr i mar y Educat i on Bi kaner , Di st r i ct Banswar a, i gnor i ng her mer i t posi t i on. Accor di ng t o her , as per t he gui del i nes i ssued by t he St at e Gover nment she shoul d have been al l ot ed t he di st r i ct of her choi ce, on t he basi s of her mer i t . The pet i t i oner

¶11

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 1223/ 15. 2

¶12

t her ef or e had ear l i er f i l ed t he pet i t i on bei ng SBCWP No. 9175/ 14 bef or e t hi s cour t i n whi ch f ol l owi ng or der was passed: -

¶13

" Havi ng r egar d t ot he f act s af or est at ed, wr i t pet i t i on i s di sposed of r equi r i ng t he r espondent s t o consi der t he r equest of t he pet i t i oner on her appl i cat i on/ r epr esent at i on now submi t t ed f or her post i ng as per her mer i t - cum- pr ef er ence subj ect t o avai l abi l i t y of vacanci es i n t he di st r i ct of her choi ce and appr opr i at e or der wi t h r egar d t o her post i ng/ f r esh post i ng/ t r ansf er t o such di st r i ct , may be passed wi t hi n t wo mont hs f r om t he dat e such appl i cat i on/ r epr esent at i on i s submi t t ed bef or e t hem. "

¶14

The r espondent No. 2 consi der i ng t he r epr esent at i on of t he pet i t i oner has

¶15

di smi ssed t he same vi de t he i mpugned or der whi ch i s under chal l enge.

¶16

I t i s submi t t ed by t he l ear ned ocunsel Mr . R. D. Meena f or t he pet i t i oner t hat t he pet i t i oner i s a si ngl e l ady and t her ef or e i s ent i t l ed t o be post ed i n her home di st r i ct or near by home di st r i ct , however she has been gi ven post i ng i n t he dar k zone ar ea i . e. Banswar a. Accor di ng t o hi m, t he r espondent No. 2 whi l e consi der i ng t he r epr esent at i on of t he pet i t i oner has not t aken i nt o consi der at i on t he sai d gui del i nes of t he St at e Gover nment and ar bi t r ar i l y deci ded t he r epr esent at i on.

¶17

The submi ssi ons made by t he l ear ned ocunsel f or t he pet i t i oner cannot be accept ed f or t he si mpl e r eason t hat as per t he set t l ed l egal

¶18

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 1223/ 15. 3

¶19

posi t i on, t he admi ni st r at i ve i nst r uct i ons ar e al ways i n t he nat ur e of gui del i nes and t hey woul d not cr eat e any l egal r i ght i n f avour of t he empl oyees. Benef i ci al r ef er ence of t he deci si on of t he Supr eme Cour t i n t he case of Uni on of I ndi a Vs. S. L. Abbas ( 1993) 4 SCC, 357 be made i n t hi s r egar d. That apar t , as t r anspi r i ng f r om t he i mpugned or der passed by t he r espondent No. 2, i t appear s t hat t he concer ned depar t ment had gi ven post i ng t o t he

¶20

sel ect ed candi dat es by f ol l owi ng t he comput er i sed r andom met hod and t her e was no pr ef er ence of pl ace ei t her asked f r om t he candi dat es nor gi ven t o t he candi dat es, except t o t he handi capped per sons. Si nce t he r espondent s had f ol l owed t he uni f or m met hod wi t h r egar d t o al l ot ment of post i ngs, by appl yi ng comput er i sed met hod, wi t hout any di scr i mi nat i on, i t coul d not be sai d t hat t he pet i t i oner was si ngl ed out f r om t he per sons si mi l ar l y si t uat ed. Si nce t he r espondent No. 2

¶21

has consi der ed t he r epr esent at i on of t he pet i t i oner i n det ai l and r ej ect ed t he same wi t h r easoned or der , t he cour t i s not i ncl i ned t o i nt er f er e wi t h t he same, mor e par t i cul ar l y when t he pet i t i oner has f ai l ed t o poi nt out any i l l egal i t y i n t he i mpugned or der .

¶22

I n t hat vi ew of t he mat t er , t he pet i t i on

¶23

SB CI VI L WRI T PETI TI ON NO. 1223/ 15. 4

¶24

deser ves t o be di smi ssedand i s accor di ngl y di smi ssed. By t hi s or der , t he st ay appl i cat i on al so st ands di smi ssed.

¶25

( BELA M. TRI VEDI ) J.

¶26

MRG Al l cor r ect i ons made i n t he j udgment / or der have been i ncor por at ed i n t he j udgment / or der bei ng emai l ed. MRG/ PS

Rachna Sharma v. State Personnel Departmentors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachna Sharma v. State Personnel Departmentors

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

M/S Global Waste Management Cell P Ltd. Vs Principal Secretary Jaipur and Others

Anil Kumar Saravgi Vs State Medical and Healthanr

Dr Atul Chaturvedi Vs State Education Departmentors

Pooja Sharma Vs R P S C Ajmer and Ors.

Murari Lal Pareek andORS Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Vishal Jindal and Anr. Vs R P S C Ajmer and Ors.