Disposed

Ram Dev Changal and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2017CW/15828/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Jaipur directed State respondents to consider grievances of teacher petitioners via representation based on terms agreed earlier. Court set a two-month timeline for departmental determination and preserved rights to further legal remedy.

What did the court decide?

Directed State to consider petitioners grievances via representation within two weeks and dispose within two months of receipt; no further stay.

Ram Dev Changal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15828 / 2017

¶3

Ram Dev Changal S/o Shri Balu Ram, Aged About 46 Years, Residents of Village Delwara Via Beawar, District Ajmer.

¶4

Kusum Dusad W/o Shri Vijay Prakash Dusad, Aged About 58 Years, Residents of Shop No. 12, Lodha Marker, Prithviraj Marg, District Ajmer.

¶5

Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Radheshyam Sharma, 33 Janta Colony, Bijainagar, Bijainagar, Ajmer.

¶6

Shimla Vaishnav W/o Shri Manmohan Kumar, Aged About 46 Years, Residents of Jay Gurudev Bhawan, Shrangar Chavari, Bihariganj, District Ajmer.

¶7

Lokesh Kumar Vaishnav S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, Aged About 35 Years, Residents of Village and Post Nasirda, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Rajasthan, Through the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education (SecondaryI), Ajmer.

¶12

The District Education Officer, Secondary Education (SecondaryI), Deoli, Tonk.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balkishan Saini & Mr. Sushil Solaki For Respondent(s) :

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶16

Order

¶17

14/09/2017

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset submits that this court in batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 11136/2017; Prem Bai Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., relying upon the direction issued by another

¶19

(2 of 5)

¶20

[CW-15828/2017]

¶21

Coordinate Bench of this Court in another batch of writ application lead case being SBCWP No. 10232/2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., required the petitioners therein to address a representation observing thus:

¶22

“ Learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, G.C., appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submits that controversy raised in the instant batch of writ applications stands resolved in view of the adjudication by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch writ applications lead case being No.10232/2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 19th August, 2016, observing thus:

¶23

“I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners and narrated above, it can be redressed, if representation is given by the petitioners within ten days from today and exercise is thereupon undertaken by the department in the following manner for which their exist agreement between the parties:

¶24

(1) The petitioners would make a representation to the respondents raising their grievances against the order of posting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge of the posting. 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 11 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

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CW-15828/2017]

¶27

required in a particular school or against a post, then such posts would not be filled by transfer for a period of three months.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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 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 9 th May, 2016. While applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievances of the petitioners.

¶31

(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate 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 petitioners have already joined the post in pursuance of the orders under challenge, then 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 petitioners would be at liberty to make

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

[CW-15828/2017]

¶37

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.

¶38

(9) It is agreed that the representation would be considered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order. The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.”

¶39

It is further contended that in view of the directions made by the Coordinate bench in the case of Smt. Rooplata Meena (supra) ; grievances of the petitioners would be considered on the representation already submitted and/or representation submitted within one weeks hereinafter.

¶40

The proposal made is acceptable to the counsel for the petitioners.

¶41

Accordingly, the instant writ application is disposed off with the direction to the State-respondents to consider various grievances raised by the petitioners in their representation already filed/may be filed within the period aforesaid; in the backdrop of the terms and conditions, which have been referred to and agreed upon in the case of Smt. Rooplata Meena (supra), which are reiterated.

¶42

In view of the above, the State-respondents are directed to do the needful while adjudicating upon the representation(s) of the petitioners as per the terms and conditions, extracted herein above, in the case of Smt. Rooplata Meena (supra), which have been agreed upon by the parties. The State-respondents would determine the representation(s), of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than two months from the date a certified copy of this order along with representation(s) is presented.

¶43

In the cases where the petitioners have not been relieved, they may not be relieved until determination of the representation(s).

¶44

Needless to observe that in case, the petitioners are

¶45

(5 of 5)

¶46

[CW-15828/2017]

¶47

still aggrieved of the determination on their representation, they will be at liberty to avail of the legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶48

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the instant batch of writ applications is disposed off.”

¶49

Learned counsel further submits that for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner within a time frame which they are ready to willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶50

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioners are allowed to address a representation within two weeks hereinafter.

¶51

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same in terms of the order in the case of Prem Bai Meena (supra).

¶52

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

¶53

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶54

SS/198

Ram Dev Changal and Ors. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Dev Changal and Ors. 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

Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bhupesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt.Susheela Devi Vs Padma Devi and Ors.

O/L of M/S Nine Apparels Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S B S Shaw and Others

Kamlesh @ Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Rashmi Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp