Rajasthan High Court
CW/23992/2017 of MANOJ KUMAR Vs STATE RURAL DEVELP and PANCHAYATI ORS on 21 December 2017
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23992 / 2017 Manoj Kumar Son of Shri Babu Lal, by Caste Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village Kheda, Post Naam, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23992 / 2017
Manoj Kumar Son of Shri Babu Lal, by Caste Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident of Village Kheda, Post Naam, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayatiraj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. District Elementary Education Officer, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
6. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
7. Block Elementary Education Officer, Block Kaman, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
8. Block Elementary Education Officer, Block Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaman SinghFor Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
21/12/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submitsthat the controversy raised, in the instant writ application, standsresolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Benchof this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2226 of 2014; holdingthus:
“Issue notice. Copies of the writ petitions have beensupplied to Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General forthe State.
All these writ petitions have been filed by petitionersworking on the post of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher Grade-III and Headmasters, contending that their posting as perinstructions of the Government ought to be made as far aspossible in the district of their choice on the basis of theirmerit position. Petitioners have in this connection relied onCircular dated 11/09/2013 issued by the Principal Secretaryto Government in its Department of School Education inrespect of the Head Masters selected for appointmentthrough Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anotherCircular dated 03/08/2012 issued by the Additional ChiefSecretary of the Government for Rural Development andPanchayati Raj Department in respect of Teachers Gr.IIand Gr.III selected for appointment in Primary and UpperPrimary Schools of the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similarwrit petition pertaining to Teacher Grade-III was allowedby 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 ofstatement made on behalf of the respondent-State thatposting in the district of choice would be given to thecandidates as per their merit-cum-preference. However, itwas also given out that in case of disabled, divorcee, widowand single female, preference will be given to the place oftheir choice irrespective of their merit position. If anyconflict arises in regard to preference inter-se betweenthem, preference would be given to the candidates belongingto any one of these four categories on the basis of his/hermerit. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also arguedthat while some of the candidates have been accommodatedwithin the district of their choice/preference on the basisof merit but the petitioners have not been afforded similartreatment.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for theState submitted that the government is prepared toconsider request of the petitioners as per instructionsissued by it from time to time in regard to posting. If theinstructions dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013 continues to be operative, the government upon petitionersapproaching, would consider their request subject to theirmerit-cumpreference depending on the availability ofvacancies in a given district.
Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering thecategorical instructions issued by the government dated03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013, all these writ petitions aredisposed of requiring the respondents to consider therequest of the petitioners on their application/representation now submitted for their posting as pertheir merit-cum-preference subject to availability ofvacancies in the district of their choice and appropriateorder with regard to their posting/fresh posting/transferto such district, may be passed within two months from thedate such application/representation is submitted beforethem.”
It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed toconsider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within atime frame, which he is ready and willing to address within twoweeks hereinafter.
In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writproceedings stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner toaddress a comprehensive representation to the respondents.
In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writproceedings stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner toaddress a comprehensive representation to the respondents withintwo weeks herein after.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaidperiod, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decidethe same by a reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop ofopinion in the case of Smt. Anju Meena (supra), as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than four weeks from thedate of receipt of the representation.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, thewrit application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.
SS/330