Disposed

Poonam Khandelwal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2017CW/10584/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition regarding teacher posting grievances. Relying on a coordinate bench order, the Court directed the petitioner to submit a formal representation outlining grounds for challenging her posting within two weeks, compelling the State to decide it within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation within two weeks; State directed to decide within four weeks.

Poonam Khandelwal Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10584 / 2017

¶3

Poonam Khandelwal W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of Near Saras Hotel, Gaurishankar Colony, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 321001.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Director of Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Mathur

¶11

For Respondent(s) :

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶13

Order

¶14

12/07/2017

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP Number 10232 of 2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 19^th August, 2016.

¶16

It is further contended that for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame, which she is ready and willing to address to them.

¶17

Counsel has also referred to the order dated 23^rd August, 2016, made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-10584/2017]

¶20

Vijay Kumar Lamba Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 23^rd August, 2016.

¶21

In the case of Smt. Rooplata Meena (supra), the batch of

¶22

writ applications was decided with the directions, which read thus:

¶23

“(1) The petitioner/s would make a representation to the respondents raising his/her/their grievances against the order of posting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge of the posting.

¶24

The representation aforesaid would be submitted within a period of ten days from today along with certified copy of this order. The respondent department i.e. Secondary as well as Elementary Education would immediately notify the vacant posts in different schools and out of which, in which school they are in need of a Teacher. If a vacant post exists in the school, but looking to the strength of the students, the Teacher may not be required then while notifying the vacant post in the school, it would be made clear by the department that against any post or posts, they do not need additional hands. It is agreed that if the department finds that additional hands are not required in a particular school or against a post, then such posts would not be filled by transfer for a period of three months.

¶25

(2) The Teachers of Level II posted against the post of Level-I would be transferred back to their post immediately after getting the new recruitees or on availability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercise would be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer of Teachers Gr.III appointed on Level-I but transferred against the post of Level-II, if any.

¶26

(3) The department would post the Teacher against the post meant for specialised subject if their recruitment was in a particular subject or they are teaching the

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CW-10584/2017]

¶29

subject for years together. The Teacher of subject would be transferred to a post of the said subject only so that students may not suffer.

¶30

(4) While undertaking the exercise, the department may take into consideration the guidelines issued on 8th May, 2016 and 9th May, 2016. While applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievances of the petitioner/s.

¶31

(5) The petitioner/s would be at liberty to indicate his/her/their choice of school other than it is notified by the respondents.

¶32

(6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would be dealth with by the department. The request can be accepted because in the case of mutual transfer, it would not affect any one which includes even the department. The prayer for mutual transfer would be between the employees of same level of the post and set up apart from subject, if any.

¶33

(7) If the petitioner/s has/have already joined the post in pursuance of the orders under challenge, then his/her/their joining would not be taken adverse for disposal of the representation and carrying out the directions given.

¶34

(8) Apart from the issues referred above, if any other issue exists to seek change of the place of transfer, the petitioner/s would be at liberty to make a representation showing the ground for it like posting of husband and wife at one place, illness, disability, retirement in few months or any such similar ground.

¶35

(9) It is agreed that the representation would be considered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order.”

¶36

As prayed, the instant writ proceedings are closed with a

¶37

direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CW-10584/2017]

¶40

representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Smt. Rooplata Meena (supra), within a period of two weeks hereinafter.

¶41

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶42

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ as well as stay application stand disposed off.

¶43

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶44

SS/90

Poonam Khandelwal v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Khandelwal v. State of Raj 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

Aslam Khan Vs Nanak Chand Vashishth

Rishi Lal Chhabara Vs Prem Kumar Mehta

Ramlal Punia and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dharampal Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Yashwant Singh Vs M D Rural Industrial andANR

Pushpendra Vs State of Rajasthan through P P