Disposed

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2018CW/5649/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge writ bench disposed of this application regarding posting of Grade-II, Grade-III teachers and Headmasters. The court directed respondents to consider representations based on merit-cum-preference within two months and decided to dispose of the writ pending this representation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider representations for posting based on merit-cum-preference within two months and decide within four weeks of receipt.

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5649/2018

¶3

Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Sube Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Bhensali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) At Present Residing At House No. 47 Ayodhya Nagar, Jaipur.

¶4

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bhensali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) At Present Residing Plot No. 24, Navjivaan Vihar, Gandhi Path, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parisad, Churu.

¶10

The District Elementary Education Officer, Churu (Raj.)

¶11

The Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Ratangarh, Churu (Raj.)

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Order

¶15

16/03/2018

¶16

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

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-5649/2018]

¶19

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

¶20

All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners working on the post of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher GradeIII 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 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.

¶23

Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering the categorical instructions issued by the government dated

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-5649/2018]

¶26

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.”

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶31

SS/105

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar and Anr. 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

Bharti Sharma Vs State Education Department Ors.

Sahab Singh Vs State Education Department Ors.

Babli Gupta Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ravindra Kumar Poswal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramesh Chand Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Tarun Kumar Gautam Vs Principal Secretary and Ors.