Dismissed

Bheru Lal Kumhar S/O Shri Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education Department

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2018CW/13649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench held that the controversy in the instant writ application regarding teacher posting is resolved in view of an order by a Co-ordinate Bench directing the admission of representations. Consequently, the petition was closed without a fresh hearing, directing the Department to consider the petitioner's grievances within two months and to decide them by order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ application closed. Direction to petitioner to address representation regarding grievance for posting. State to consider and decide within four weeks from the date of receipt of representatio

Bheru Lal Kumhar S/O Shri Tulsi Ram Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 13649/2018

¶3

Bheru Lal Kumhar S/o Shri Tulsi Ram , Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village And Post Gogala Tehsil Jhadol (F) District Udaipur, Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

:$%89&&&6m3~+~ 44 f&-r%-p 'S.'-** "&L& &$" Learned counselw r submits that the

¶6

controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 10232/2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.; wherein after considering the grievances of the petitioners therein, a consent order was made observing thus:

¶7

"After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners and narrated above, it can be

¶8

(2 of 4)

¶9

[CW-13649/2018j

¶10

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:

¶11

(I) 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 with-in 3 ~eriod of ten days from

¶12

department i.e. 9ecpTidary as "%,&p .$$% we~~qaskiementar ass"F Education would immediatefkfilotifytify A*% 'w kf2p8p"1 t~~~Bcant posts in different schools and out of mhich ">Y *:<N J in which school thev are in nee( d of a Teacher. If a

¶13

artment that %$tf.S< additional hands arefnoii .3rl.f rgqqjed . n a particular school or against a pos ould not be filled by transfer for a

¶14

ed against the post of Level-I wou back to their post availability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercise would be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer of Teachers Gr.111 appointed on Level-I but transferred against the post of Level-11, if any.

¶15

(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

¶16

subject only so that students may not suffer.

¶17

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

¶18

(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate their choice of school other than it is notified by the -? - respondents. fib.'- " %&;%* .;.Fd--'s. "* %: " 1 4. $$ $* 'N; ." . -4 3 0 jf, ii PT . _,b_* .< iLL $U h;$i" (6) I~~~UJU&I transfer is sought'thepwit would be J1: 9 %, & GF>" ;, dealt d~itfiby ,++\ ;4P the department. The request.,can be fil 3% acceptedd because in the case of mutual tramJ$$.%it %PC% _'if rt"w_ NIr, % w8Wd not affect any one which includes evei5rfke department. The prayerT3fq.rF-,mytual ;f,&4&-" &:

¶19

in pursuance of t joining would not

¶20

d above, if any or it like posting of "L husband and wifit4q$+39g6 @ja4e.,e..~llness, disability, ., -,wwea$.s&;&~v'Qm -. ..:>re--7:?<w u C retirement in few months or any such similar ground.

¶21

(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 off with the aforesaid period. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file."

¶22

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if

¶23

(4 of 4)

¶24

[CW-13649/2018]

¶25

the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for posting against any vacant post in nearby area, in view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Rooplata Meena (Supra).

¶26

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive represe,,ntatio,n_to the State-respondents ir. %% "- TF- ,.y{<l, pkxl,q .& &+ i; (2 , ventilating grievan.es?$a.sed herein. a".yI4J6 4 c t 8'2. %$ 52% tp$$;:d, ,.: 9 %,i q- zj*d".2ir -,?;i a. In casei:,ac representation is so addressed withl&he aforesaid "4 4 t period,4@d~tate-respondents ,by are directed to conside??&ni . ,&+ decide ?,iT

¶27

the same by a reasoned an as expeditiously as possible in accordan n no case later than

¶28

four weeks from th

¶29

With the obser sf a.s indicated above, the

¶30

writ application stands

¶31

GH S1RADHANA)J.

Bheru Lal Kumhar S/O Shri Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheru Lal Kumhar S/O Shri Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education Department

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

Vishram Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Kant Sahu and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhupesh Kumar Ahari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Lalit Kumar Ninama S/O Shri Karam Chand Ninama Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department

Mahesh Chand Sharma S/O Shri Raghuveer Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan through Director, Elementary Education

Govind Verma Vs State of Raj and Ors.