CW/23882/2017 of HANUMANA RAM Vs STATE OF RAJ AND ORS on 21 December 2017

1. Hanumana Ram S/o Shri Raju Ram, by Caste Jat, R/o Mukam Post Sardarpura Khurd, Tehsil Didwana, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Deda Ram S/o Shri Chuna Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jakharo Ki Dhaniya, Dhanari Kalan, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan Through Director, Elementary Education,Bikaner.

2. Director, Secondary/Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. Dy. Director, Secondary/Primary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.

4. The District Education Officer, (Elementary Education), Nagaur, Distt. Nagaur.

5. The Block Primary Education Officer, Nagaur.

----Respondents

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Sharma

For Respondent(s) :

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANAOrder 21/12/2017

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmits that the controversy raised in the instant writ applicationstands resolved in view of the order dated 3[rd] February, 2017,wherein the writ application was disposed off relying upon theopinion in the case of Begraj Versus State and Ors.

It is further contended that, at this stage, the petitionerswould be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners within a timeframe, in terms of the order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar SharmaVersus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017 andBegraj (supra), holding thus; “After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners andnarrated above, it can be redressed, if representation is given bythe petitioners within ten days from today and exercise isthereupon undertaken by the department in the following mannerfor which their exist agreement between the parties:

(1) The petitioners would make a representation to therespondents raising their grievances against the order ofposting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge ofthe posting. The representation aforesaid would besubmitted within a period of ten days from today alongwith certified copy of this order. The respondentdepartment i.e. Secondary as well as Elementary Educationwould immediately notify the vacant posts in differentschools and out of which, in which school they are in needof a Teacher. If a vacant post exists in the school, butlooking to the strength of the students, the Teacher maynot be required then while notifying the vacant post in theschool, it would be made clear by the department thatagainst any post or posts, they do not need additionalhands. It is agreed that if the department finds thatadditional hands are not required in a particular school oragainst a post, then such posts would not be illed bytransfer for a period of three months.

(2) The Teachers of Level II posted against the post ofLevel-I would be transferred back to their postimmediately after getting the new recruitees or onavailability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercisewould be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer ofTeachers Gr.III appointed on Level-I but transferredagainst the post of Level-II, if any.

(3) The department would post the Teacher against thepost meant for specialised subject if their recruitmentwas in a particular subject or they are teaching thesubject for years together. The Teacher of subject wouldbe transferred to a post of the said subject only so thatstudents may not suffer.

(4) While undertaking the exercise, the department maytake into consideration the guidelines issued on 8th May,2016 and 9th May, 2016. While applying the saidguidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievancesof the petitioners.

(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate their choice of school other than it is notified by therespondents.

(6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would be dealtwith by the department. The request can be acceptedbecause in the case of mutual transfer, it would not affectany one which includes even the department. The prayerfor mutual transfer would be between the employees ofsame level of the post and set up apart from subject, ifany.

(7) If the petitioners have already joined the post npursuance of the orders under challenge, then their joiningwould not be taken adverse for disposal of therepresentation and carrying out the directions given.

(8) Apart from the issues referred above, if any otherissue exists to seek change of the place of transfer, thepetitioners would be at liberty to make a representationshowing the ground for it like posting of husband and wifeat one place, illness, disability, retirement in few monthsor any such similar ground.

(9) It is agreed that the representation would beconsidered by the department within a period of twomonths with necessary order.”

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the petitioners aredirected to address a detailed representation enclosing a copy ofthe order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma (supra) andBegraj (supra).

In case, the case of the petitioners is found covered byadjudication in the case of Begraj (supra); the petitioners be alsoaccorded the same relief in terms of the order, as extractedherein above.

With the observation and directions as indicated above, thewrit application stands disposed off.

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.