The Court disposed of a writ petition regarding teacher posting grievances. It directed the petitioner to file a detailed representation citing prior judgments and accorded the same relief if the case was covered by those decisions.
Petitioner directed to file a detailed representation; to be accorded same relief if covered by precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3309 / 2018
Namrata Jain D/o Shri Sobhagyamal Jain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 526, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Sain For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
26/02/2018
Though the matter has been listed in the category of “orders” with the remark “notice awaited”, however, counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application has already been resolved by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Begraj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.1925/2017.
It is further contended that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner within a time frame, in terms of the order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma Versus
(2 of 3)
[CW-3309/2018]
The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017 and Begraj (supra), holding thus;
“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:
(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.
(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.
(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 petitioners.
(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate their choice of school other than it is notified by the respondents.
(6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would be dealt
(3 of 3)
[CW-3309/2018]
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.
(7) If the petitioners have already joined the post n 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.
(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 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.
(9) It is agreed that the representation would be considered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order.”
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioner is directed to address a detailed representation enclosing a copy of the order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma (supra) and Begraj (supra).
In case, the case of the petitioner is found covered by adjudication in the case of Begraj (supra); the petitioner be also accorded the same relief in terms of the order, as extracted herein above.
With the observation and directions as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/145
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief granted in the coordinate bench decision of Begraj v. State of Rajasthan.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to file a representation to redress grievances regarding teacher posting.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Begraj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Applied¶15
Begraj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017
Kuldeep Kumar Sharma vs. State of RajasthanExplained¶16
Kuldeep Kumar Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017
Namrata Jain
State of Rajasthan
The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
Deputy Director (secondary), Bharatpur
District Education Officer, Secondary, Bharatpur
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
