Disposed

Mangilal Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2022CW/9163/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner agreed that the controversy is covered by Babu Lal Puniya and Kanheya Lal Meena judgments. Court disposed of the petition on same terms, directing respondents to adhere to transfer rules (Rule 6D of Rules of 1971; Rule 6C of 2021 Rules).

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of on same terms as Kanheya Lal Meena case with liberty to pass fresh transfer orders adhering to Rule 6C of Rajasthan Education State and Subordinate Services Rules 2021.

Mangilal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9163/2019

¶4

Mangilal Meghwal S/o Shri Ambalal Meghwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Post Gogunda District Udaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.

¶10

Director Elementary Education, Bikaner.

¶11

District Education Officer, Secondary, Udaipur.

¶12

Chief Block Education Officer, Sayra District Udaipur.

¶13

Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Udaipur.

¶14

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Kamol Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pritam Joshi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sarwan Kumar, AGC for Mr. Hemant Choudhary,GC

¶17

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶18

Order

¶19

14/07/2022

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents are agreeable to the fact that the controversy in question rests covered by the judgment passed in the case of

¶21

Kanheya Lal Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9169/2019) decided on 28.04.2022.

¶22

In the case of Kanheya Lal Meena (supra), this Court observed as under:-

¶23

“Learned counsel for the respondents states that the controversy involved in the present matters has been decided in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9282/2019; Babu Lal Puniya v.

¶24

(2 of 3)

¶25

[CW-9163/2019]

¶26

State of Rajasthan & Ors. In Babu Lal Puniya case (supra), it had been held as under:

¶27

“From the above operational guidelines, it is apparent that it is only the DEO (Hqrs), Secondary Education, who has the jurisdiction to pass the orders for transfer of the petitioners from Primary Education to Secondary Education and accord postings being their appointing authority and, therefore, entire petition based on the submission regarding lack of jurisdiction, has no substance.

¶28

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed leaving it open for them to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, in case they have any grievance qua the issues other the authority of the DEO (Hqrs), Secondary Education.”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not refute the above position but he make a specific submission that the compliance of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 has not been made in the present matter and the respondents be directed to make the compliance of the same.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16671/2015: Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶31

In Surendra Kumar Bhatt’s case (supra), the following observation had been made by the Court:

¶32

“Accordingly, while not interfering in the impugned order for the reasons given above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to look into the seniority of all teachers, so transferred. If any senior teacher is left out and at the same time, junior teacher has been transferred, then they are directed to

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

[CW-9163/2019]

¶35

correct the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶36

It is made clear that compliance of the directions given by this Court would be made in strict terms and while revising the list, if so required. It would be in strict adherence to the provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and in future also, similar exercise would not be taken in violation of the said rule, otherwise the Department is directed to fix the responsibility of the officer concerned so that litigation may not come on account of violation of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971.”

¶37

In view of the ratio as laid down in Babu Lal Puniya’s case (supra), while making the interim orders passed in the writ petition absolute, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

The respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh transfer orders in light of the subsequent judgments. It is made clear that the adherence to the provisions of Rule 6C of the Rajasthan Education State and Subordinate Services Rules, 2021 (akin to Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971) would be strictly made as laid down in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt.”

¶39

In view of the submissions made, the present writ petition is also disposed of on the same terms as in Kanheya Lal Meena’s case (supra).

¶40

All the pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶41

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶42

19-Sachin/-

Mangilal Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Surya Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Gehlot Vs Jai Narayan Vyas University

Aslam Khan Bhati Vs District and Session Judge, Churu and Anr.

Heera Lal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Bai Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Singaria Vs State and Ors.