The High Court allowed the writ petition held that a teacher of higher merit was entitled to District Dholpur as per the advertisement's merit-cum-preference clause, overriding the allotment given to less meritorious candidates subsequently.
Respondents directed to allot petitioner District Dholpur within four weeks.
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. 1041/2021
Samiksha Sharma D/o. Shri Ramakant Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village And Post Bharli, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Aditya Mishra through VC |
| Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, AAG |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
21/02/2022
Although, the matter comes up on an interim application filed by the petitioner; but, on the joint request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition itself was heard finally at this stage on its merit.
The petitioner confines her relief in the writ petition to her posting/transfer as per her merit-cum-preference.
The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I in pursuance of advertisement dated 12.04.2018
(2 of 4)
[CW-1041/2021]
wherein, Clause 13(3) provided that candidates would be allotted District of their preference as per merit. The petitioner was selected for appointment vide order dated 15.05.2019 and was allotted District Barmer. It is stated that vide order dated 18.01.2021, persons less meritorious than her have been allotted district of their choice, i.e., Dholpur ignoring petitioner’s claim for the District Dholpur as per her merit position. A prayer has been made that the respondents be directed to give her posting in District Dholpur.
The respondents in their reply have stated that the petitioner was allotted District Barmer vide order dated 15.05.2019 as per availability of the vacant post in order of preference-cum-merit. It is averred that vide order dated 18.01.2021, persons from waiting list were given appointment in pursuance of direction of this Court in several writ petitions and were allotted Districts as per availability of vacant post. It is stated that the petitioner has already joined on 22.07.2019 in her allotted District and is not entitled for any change.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled for allotment of District Dholpur, her first preference as the persons less meritorious than her have been allotted the same District ignoring her candidature. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the respondents may be directed to allot her District Dholpur. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a co-ordinate Bench order of this Court dated 03.10.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012: Monika Meel Vs. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur and another connected matter .
(3 of 4)
[CW-1041/2021]
Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was allotted District Barmer as per vacancies available at the relevant time and she has no right for change in District on account of appointment to the persons from the waiting list in pursuance of directions of this court. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard and considered.
Clause 13(3) of the advertisement which, admittedly, is in conformity with the statutory provisions contained in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and the Rules 1996 framed therein, categorically provides that candidates would be allotted District as per their merit-cum-preference. Indisputably, vide order dated 18.01.2021, persons less meritorious than the petitioner have been allotted District Dholpur, the first preference given by her. Thus, the petitioner was entitled for allotment of District Dholpur prior to its allotment to the less meritorious candidates. Contention of learned AAG that candidature of the petitioner for allotment District Dholpur could not have been considered at the time of issuance of order dated 18.01.2021 as she has already joined in District Barmer, does not merit acceptance. It was incumbent upon the respondents to have considered the candidature of the petitioner on account of her higher merit as and when persons less meritorious than her were given appointment out of the same advertisement, lest, it would amount to putting less meritorious candidates who could not secure berth in the main list to more advantageous position than the higher meritorious candidates, which would militate against the letter and spirit of Clause 13(3) of the advertisement.
(4 of 4)
[CW-1041/2021]
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated
03.10.2012, held as under:
“In view of the submissions of the counsel for the respondents and satisfaction shown by the petitioners, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that postings of Teacher Gr. II should be given as per the preference given by the candidates subject to their merits, thereby meritorious candidates would be having better choice of postings in comparison to less meritorious candidates. The exception of the aforesaid would be for disabled, divorcee, widows and single female. However, in case of preference between these four categories, meritorious candidate would get preference in postings. This order would not only apply to these petitions but would be followed for entire State. This is to avoid any controversy of postings and litigations in that regard. Thus, State Government is expected to regulate the postings as directed above.”
In view thereof, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The respondents are directed to allot the petitioner District Dholpur. The compliance be made within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/76
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a teacher of higher merit is entitled to District allotment as per her preference when less meritorious candidates were allotted the same district subsequently.
Whether joining the service in an allotted district bars a higher merit candidate from claiming transfer to a preferred district occupied by less meritorious appointees.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Monika Meel Vs. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, JaipurFollowed¶31
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012: Monika Meel Vs. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur and another connected matter
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samiksha Sharma
The State Of Rajasthan
Rishab Kumar Sharma
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
