Disposed

Jitendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2023CW/555/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an order disposing of a writ petition regarding posting of a teacher, the Court held that the dispute is resolved by referring to a prior coordinate bench decision. It directed the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation within two weeks. The State was ordered to consider and decide it within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to address comprehensive representation within two weeks; State to decide within four weeks.

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 555/2023

¶3

Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Leela Parewar, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad Barmer, Rajasthan. 4. Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Gadraroad, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati for Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhati

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

12/01/2023

¶14

Petitioner has raised a grievance that he has not been given posting at Jaisalmer, whereas less meritorious persons have been given posting in Jaisalmer.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the persons who have secured higher rank should be preferred in giving place of posting, whereas the respondents have violated such principles.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner, 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

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-555/2023]

¶19

& Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2226 of 2014; holding thus:

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar writ petition pertaining to Teacher GradeIII 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.

¶23

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

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-555/2023]

¶26

approaching, would consider their request subject to their merit-cumpreference depending on the availability of vacancies in a given district.

¶27

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

¶28

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address, within two weeks hereinafter.

¶29

In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writ proceedings stand disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents.

¶30

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.

¶31

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶33

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶34

108-SanjayS/-

Jitendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukeshee Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Constable (Driver) No. 1003 (Retd) Vs the State of Rajasthan

Anita Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunil Potter Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan