Disposed

Hansraj Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Rajasthan HC18 Jan 2018CW/1320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding posting preference, a coordinate judgment was cited. The court disposed of the petition with direction to petitioners to address a comprehensive representation within two weeks. Respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation by a reasoned order within four weeks if received.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address comprehensive representation within two weeks. Respondents directed to consider and decide representation by reasoned order within four weeks of receipt. Writ petition d

Hansraj Meena Vs State Rural Develp and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1320 / 2018

¶3

Hansraj Meena Son of Shri Khilari Ram Meena, by Caste Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village & Post Jol, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶9

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶10

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

¶11

District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶12

Block Elementary Education Officer, Block Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶13

Block Elementary Education Officer, Block Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶14

Block Elementary Education Officer, Block Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaman Singh

¶17

For Respondent(s) :

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶19

Order

¶20

18/01/2018

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the controversy raised, in the instant writ application, stands

¶22

(2 of 4)

¶23

[CW-1320/2018]

¶24

resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2226 of 2014; holding thus:

¶25

“Issue notice. Copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the State.

¶26

All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners working on the post of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher Grade-III and Headmasters, contending that their posting as per instructions of the Government ought to be made as far as possible in the district of their choice on the basis of their merit position. Petitioners have in this connection relied on Circular dated 11/09/2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government in its Department of School Education in respect of the Head Masters selected for appointment through Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another Circular dated 03/08/2012 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department in respect of Teachers Gr.II and Gr.III selected for appointment in Primary and Upper Primary Schools of the State.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar writ petition pertaining to Teacher Grade-III was allowed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012 : Monika Meel Vs. The Dy.Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur vide order dated 3/10/2012 on the basis of statement made on behalf of the respondent-State that posting in the district of choice would be given to the candidates as per their merit-cum-preference. However, it was also given out that in case of disabled, divorcee, widow and single female, preference will be given to the place of their choice irrespective of their merit position. If any conflict arises in regard to preference inter-se between them, preference would be given to the candidates belonging to any one of these four categories on the basis of his/her merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that while some of the candidates have been accommodated within the district of their choice/preference on the basis of merit but the petitioners have not been afforded similar treatment.

¶28

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the government is prepared to consider request of the petitioners as per instructions issued by it from time to time in regard to posting. If the instructions dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013

¶29

(3 of 4)

¶30

[CW-1320/2018]

¶31

continues to be operative, the government upon petitioners approaching, would consider their request subject to their merit-cumpreference depending on the availability of vacancies in a given district.

¶32

Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering the categorical instructions issued by the government dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013, all these writ petitions are disposed of requiring the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners on their application /representation now submitted for their posting as per their merit-cum-preference subject to availability of vacancies in the district of their choice and appropriate order with regard to their posting/fresh posting/transfer to such district, may be passed within two months from the date such application/representation is submitted before them.”

¶33

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 he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶34

In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writ proceedings stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents.

¶35

In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writ proceedings stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents within two weeks herein after.

¶36

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 in the backdrop of opinion in the case of Smt. Anju Meena (supra), as expeditiously

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CW-1320/2018]

¶39

as possible, however, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.

¶40

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶41

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶42

Pooja/173

Hansraj Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansraj Meena v. State Rural Develp and Panchayati 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

Mithilesh Rawat and Anr. Vs Mmtc Ltd.

Hariram and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Sagar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chetan Kumar Bairwa Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Nawal Singh Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Malkhan Singh Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.