Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Rajasthan vs Poonam Sharma D/O Shri Gopal Lal Sharma ... on 29 August, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 815/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Edu-
cation Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan,
Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Poonam Sharma D/o Shri Gopal Lal Sharma W/o Shri Satish Ku-
mar Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of A-54, Narayan
Vihar, Near Sector-3, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
----Respondent
Connected With
(2) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 816/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Govt., Secondary Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Heera Lal Saini S/o Shri Banwari Lal Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dhani Patwari
Wali Village And Post Bhandarej, Tehsil Dausa, District Dausa.
----Respondent
(3) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 817/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Devi D/o Shri Umesh Chand Sharma W/o Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, Resident Of House No. 182/13, Sector-18, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,
Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(2 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
----Respondent
(4) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 818/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Gokul Prasad Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 300, Meeno
Ka Mohalla, Nayan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(5) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 819/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota
----Appellants
Versus
Umraw Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ramdhan Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Nekawala, Post Bobari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur
----Respondent
(6) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 828/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
5. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
6. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
7. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Jyoti Kumari W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Dalpura,
Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(3 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
(7) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 829/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
----Appellants
Versus
Damodar Prasad Saini S/o Laddu Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ramshala
Choke, Soprya Wale Badiyome Village Bonli, Post Bonli, Tehsil Bonli, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(8) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 830/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Sheela Jat D/o Prabhu Narayan Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Narsinghpura,
Via Bhankrota, Sanganer, District Jaipur
----Respondent
(9) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 840/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Educa-
tion, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Government Of
Rajasthan, Ajmer.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Government Of
Rajasthan, Shikasha Sankul, Jln Marg, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Choudhary Daughter Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary, Aged About 24
Years, Wife Of Shri Pawan Kumar Palsania, Resident Of Ward No. 24, Dhani
Khatiyawali, Neem Ka Thana Road, Shahpura, District Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(4 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
----Respondent
(10) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 841/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, To Govt. , Secondary Education
Department, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Bai Rajput D/o Shri Kishan Singh Rajput, R/o Ganga Vihar Colony, Behind
Rawat Mahal Hotal, Somnath Nagar, Ward No. 34, Dausa.
----Respondent
(11) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 844/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Bhanvar Lal Mali S/o Chotu Ram Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Bhankrota,
Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(12) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 845/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
----Appellants
Versus
Chhotu Lal Morya S/o Kanhaiya Lal Morya, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Shyam-
pura Kalan, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(13) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 846/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(5 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Brij Bala Malav D/o Shiv Pal Malav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Sankali, Post
Seemali, Tehsil Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(14) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 847/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Siyaram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village- In-
drawali, Post- Mathurahera, Tehsil- Kathumar, District- Alwar.
----Respondent
(15) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 849/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Education,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Lekhraj Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Kookara, Post And Tehsil Saipau, District Dholpur.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(16) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 857/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(6 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. Neelam Sharma D/o Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Vpo Hathnauda, Via Udaipuria, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rekha Sharma D/o Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo
Hathnauda, Via Udaipuria, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(17) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 864/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar Kishot S/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Regaron Ka
Mohalla, Samod, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(18) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 865/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Hansraj Meena S/o Sitaram Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Bichchhidona,
Tehsil Malarna Dunger, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(19) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 866/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Munesh Kumari D/o Satish Kumar W/o Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(7 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Vpo Gunti, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(20) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 867/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Rachana Kumari Gupta D/o Shri Satya Prakash Gupta, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o Boore Walon Ka Makan, Gudari Mohalla, Near Kotwali, Bharatpur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(21) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 868/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Vinay Kumar Meena S/o Prahlad Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Bad
Jagsara, Post Datwas, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(22) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 869/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Deptt., Gov-
ernment Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur
4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Karauli
5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Jodhpur
----Appellants
Versus
Bhawna Sharma W/o Late Shri Dharm Chand Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vil-
lage And Post Bajna, Tehsil Sapotara, District Karauli
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(8 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
(23) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 870/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Akshay Kumar Bairwa S/o Kanhaiya Lal Bairwa, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 56, Shiv-
anand Pury Colony, Village Mahapura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(24) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 882/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Arun Kumar S/o Raj Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Majari Bhanda, Post Ra-
jwara, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(25) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 883/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur,
Deputy Director Office, Bharatpur, Raj.
----Appellants
Versus
Pragati Sharma D/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, W/o. Abhinav Matolia, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o State Bank Of India, Near Ramchandra Park, Ratangarh, Dis-
trict- Churu Raj.
----Respondent
(26) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 884/2019
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(9 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Krishana Kumari Nagar D/o Anandi Lal Nagar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Shree
Dhakad Krishi Seva Kendra, Khanpur Road, Bapawar, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(27) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 885/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Jagdish Chand Lodha S/o Prabhu Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Devdungari,
Post Rijhon, Tehsil Bakani, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(28) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 886/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education, Govern-
ment Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Zone, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Vinita Yadav D/o Shri Phool Chand Yadav, R/o Ward No. 1, Sahadpur Bagh,
Khairthal, District Alwar.
----Respondent
(29) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 887/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School Education, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(10 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. The Director Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director (Training), Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of
Gowali, Via Pilani, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Musadi Lal Sharma, R/o Near Buhania Garage,
Shiv Colony, Khetri Road, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(30) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 888/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Krishna Nand Sharma S/o Shri Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste
Brahmin, R/o C/o Mohit And Company Shop No. 7, Opp. Sbbj Bank, Shardul Market,
Road No. 1, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondent
(31) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 889/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rekha Meena D/o Har Lal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Katarwada, Post
Badiyal Khurd, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(32) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 890/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Govt. , Secondary Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(11 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
----Appellants
Versus
Poonam Yadav D/o Shri Ghanshyam Yadav, R/o Village And Post Bandhada, Tehsil Ti-
zara, District Alwar.
----Respondent
(33) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 894/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department
(Secondary Education), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota Range Kota.
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Range Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Krishan Kumar Kharol S/o Shri Mohan Lal Kharol, Resident Of Village Madhorajpura,
Tehsil Phagi, Distt Jaipur (Raj.) 303006. Presently Posted Senior Teacher (Hindi Sub-
ject) Govt. Senior Secondary School, Telni, Distt. Baran, Raj.
----Respondent
(34) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 895/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
5. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Sona D/o Shimbhu Dayal Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jaguwas, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(35) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 896/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(12 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. Shila D/o Shri Ram Niwas, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Vill- Dhundhariya,
Tehshil-Behror, City- Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
2. Kavita Sharma D/o. Sitaram Sharma, Grade Ii Teacher Posted At Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School Dungari Khurd, Sambhar Lake, Phulera,
(08120502104) (Raj.)
----Respondents
(36) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 897/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Hema Ram S/o Doula Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Jagram Ki Dhani,
Nokhara, Tehsil Gudamalani, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(37) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 899/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Anita Kumari D/o Shri Hukam Chand, Aged About 38 Years, R/o. Ward No.
15, Moh-Bagri, Behror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
2. Suman Yadav D/o. Ramsingh Yadav, Grade Ii Teacher Posted At Govt. Girls
Senior Secondary School Paota, Paota, Virat Nagar (08123004419) (Raj.)
----Respondents
(38) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 900/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, To Govt., Secondary Education
Department, Government Of, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(13 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Shyam Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Narayan Sharma, R/o Plot No. 16, Vishnu Vi-
har Colony, Prem Nagar-B, Agra Road, Jaipur.
----Respondent
(39) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 901/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Manju Kumari Jandu D/o Heera Lal Jandu, Aged About 34 Years, R/o W/o Kamal
Choudhary, Master Ji Ki Dhani, V/p Bhainsawa Ki Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(40) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 902/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Dy. Secretary, Education (Group-2) De-
partment, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The District (Secondary ) Education Officer, Alwar.
4. The District (Secondary Education), Education Officer, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Sarika Sharma D/o Shri Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Chabra Road,
Bapawar Kalan, Tehsile- Sangood, Dist- Kota (Raj.)
----Respondent
(41) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 903/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Lokesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Ramphool Prajapat, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo
Hindupura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(14 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
(42) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 904/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Secondary Education, De-
partment Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur
----Appellants
Versus
Sarita D/o Vidhya Ram Sharma W/o Niket Pathak, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ashok
Vihar Colony, Near Seema Painter, G.t. Road, Dholpur (Raj.)
----Respondent
(43) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 905/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Singh Meena S/o Mangee Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo
Beeloni, Tehsil Sarmathura, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(44) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 923/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rekha Sharma D/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Khejdo
Ke Bass, Post Mandolai, Viya Malpura, Tehsil Todaraisingh, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(45) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 924/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(15 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer (Raj.)
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Zone, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Suman Kumari Yadav D/o Shri Kurda Ram Yadav W/o Shri Deshraj Yadav, Aged
About 35 Years, By Caste Yadav, Resident Of Village Bighana, Post Gandala, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
(46) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 925/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
Usha Parashar D/o Kripa Shanker Parashar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 68, Bhagwati
Nagar Ist, Kartarpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(47) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 926/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Nirmla D/o Sahi Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Mohalla Nainsukh, Tehshil-
Bahror, Opp. Vikram Cinema, Bahror Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
2. Dhapali Bai Yadav D/o Deenaram Yadav, Grade Ii Teacher Posted At Govt.
Senior Secondary School Mohanpura, Kotputli, (08120101908) (Raj.)
----Respondents
(48) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 927/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(16 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Bijarnia S/o Shri Narayan Singh Bijarnia, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Village And Post Bibipur Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar.
----Respondent
(49) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 928/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ramkesh Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Vijay-
pura, Post Shreema, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(50) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 929/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Nisha Yadav D/o Madan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kanharka, Post And
Tehsil Kotkasim, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(51) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 930/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(17 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Versus
Prakash Chand Saini Son Of Shri Chauthmal Saini, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste
Saini, Resident Of Dasa Ka Kuaa, Ward No. 18, Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.)
----Respondent
(52) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 931/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ghamandee Lal Bairwa S/o Shri Gareeba Bairwa, Aged About 28 Years, Resident V/p
Binori, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
----Respondent
(53) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 932/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Sunita D/o Ranjeet Budaniyan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Ghassu,
Tehsil Laxmangarh, Vaya Khuribadi, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(54) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 933/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Lata Saini D/o Lalit Saini, Aged About 34 Years, R/o C/o National Trading Corpora-
tion, Old Bus Stand, Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(18 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
(55) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 934/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Anand Kumar Mourya S/o Ganga Ram Mourya, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.
10, Regro Ka Mohalla, Nayabas Via Samod, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Ra-
jasthan.
----Respondent
(56) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 935/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Singh Jadawat S/o Kailash Chandra Jadawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Plot No. 26, 27, Reedhu Bhawam Karni Path, Patel Nagar, Shahpura, Bhilwara, Ra-
jasthan.
----Respondent
(57) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 936/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ram Kala Yadav D/o Parbhu Dayal Yadav, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Miro Ka Mohalla,
Ward No. 1, Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(58) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 937/2019
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(19 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Renu Sharma D/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o C/o
Shyam Sunder Sharma, Opp. Petrol Pump, Post Maulasar, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(59) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 938/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Secondary Education, De-
partment Of Education, Govt.of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Range, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Poonam Kumari D/o Ranbir Singh W/o Satish Kumar Yadav, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Village Bhagwari Kalan, Post Jakharana, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
(60) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 939/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pinki Shekhawat D/o Chatar Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Sangalpura, Sandeepa Sweets, Sagar Road, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Bela Sharma D/o Prem Sukh Das Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o B-3-
131, Sudrasana Nagar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(61) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 940/2019
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(20 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government,
School And Sanskrit Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Ajmer
Zone, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Priyanka D/o Ram Karan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Sirohi, Via Thoi, Tehsil
Sri Madhopur District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondent
(62) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 941/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner (Raj.)
4. Dy. Director Secondary Education, Pali Zone, Pali (Raj)
5. Headmaster Govt.sr. Sec. School, Karmawas, Pata, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali
----Appellants
Versus
Sarita Kumari D/o Subhas Chandra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo-Abusar, Tehsil-
Jhunjhunun, District Jhunjhunun, Raj.
----Respondent
(63) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 942/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Meena D/o Shyo Narayan Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post
Thoniya Dhirajpura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(64) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 943/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(21 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Anita Mahala D/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chota Pana Ki Dhani, Vijay
Nagar, Palsana, Tehsil Dataramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(65) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 944/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Purushottam Kumar Jangid Son Of Shri Kajod Mal Jangid, Aged About 25 Years, By
Caste Jangid, Resident Of Brahmin Dharamshala, Lad Ka Kuwan, Lalsot, District
Dausa (Raj.)
----Respondent
(66) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 945/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Saini S/o Badri Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Behind Badaya
Dharmshala, Lahad Ka Kuwa, Lalsot, Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(67) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 946/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government,
School And Hindi Education, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Bharatpur
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(22 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Zone, Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
----Appellants
Versus
Chhoti Devi D/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Madani, Post
Manda, Via Palsana, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Respondent
(68) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 947/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
----Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sunil Kumari W/o Shri Avinash Yadav, aged about 28 years, R/o Vill. And Post
Kanhawas, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar
----Respondents
(69) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 959/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Kismat D/o Shri Om Prakash W/o Shri Sandeep Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Sc (Meghwal), R/o Village Dumoli Kalan, Post Dumoli Khurd, Tehsil Buhana,
District, Jhunjhunu
----Respondent
(70) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 960/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Chand Lodha S/o Gouri Lal Lodha, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Devdun-
gari, Post Rijhon, Tehsil Bakani, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(23 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
(71) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 961/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary, Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Ramkesh Mahawar S/o Shri Ghudmal Mahawar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident V/p
Binori, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
----Respondent
(72) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 962/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Kumari Meena D/o Kajod Mal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Prahladpura, Post Mirzapura, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(73) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 963/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Secondary Education, De-
partment Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Range, Udaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Jyoti Yadav D/o Virendra Singh Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Guwana, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Respondent
(74) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 964/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(24 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jaipur
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Suman Meena D/o P.c. Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Manderpura, Post
Garh, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(75) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 965/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
----Appellants
Versus
Mahendra Singh S/o Kishor Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bad Shareema,
Post Shareema, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(76) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 966/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pushpa Sharma D/o Shri Phool Chand Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Trigunayat Bhawan, Ward No. 05, Bahror, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
2. Kavita Sharma D/o. Sitaram Sharma, Grade Ii Teacher Posted At Govt.
Adarsh Senior Secondary School Dungari Khurd, Sambhar Lake,
(08120502104) Phulera (Raj.)
----Respondents
(77) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 967/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(25 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sonu Soni D/o Prahlad Ram Soni, Aged About 33 Years, R/o P. No. 9, Karni
Colony, Shanti Nagar, Khatipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Sarita Kumari Jat D/o Ram Karna Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gram Post
Nithara, Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Pushpa Kumari Jhanjharia D/o Daoulat Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
145, Ratti Ram Ki Dhani, Newta, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Asha Jangid D/o Chhitar Mal Jangid, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 48, Ganesh
Nagar, Near Kumawat School, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(78) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 968/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary School Education, Education
Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
3. Joint Director (Training) Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Ra-
jasthan).
4. Joint Director, School Education, Churu Division, Churu (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Bhanwar Lal Kumawat Son Of Shri Raghunath Ram Kumawat, Aged About
40 Years, Resident Of Village Khatu Walon Ki Dhani, Pachar Road, Kis-
hangarh-Renwal District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
(79) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 969/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Rashmi Dewal D/o Girwar Singh Dewal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 8, Madan
Vihar, Dadi Ka Phatak Ke Pass, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(26 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
----Respondent
(80) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 976/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur Division, Udaipur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Priyanka Chaudhary D/o Khubi Singh Chaudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Krishna
Sharma House, Pawan Kunj, Kaman, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(81) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 987/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Labeeta Kumari D/o Balwant Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post
Kohrana, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(82) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 988/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division
----Appellants
Versus
Nirmala Yogi D/o Balram Yogi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kunj Vihar Colony, Atru
Road, District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(83) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 989/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(27 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Dalraj Meena S/o Jansi Lal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Jatlaw, Post
Googrod, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(84) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 991/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Prabhoo Ram Tarar S/o Rekha Ram Tarar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Deluo Ka
Tala, Post Bisarnia, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(85) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 992/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Sushila Kumari Meena D/o Radheshyam Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Kankret, Post Rahrai, Tehsil Sarmathura, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(86) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 994/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(28 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Sumer Singh S/o Malkhan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Kalsara,
Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(87) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 997/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Secondary Education, De-
partment Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner
----Appellant
Versus
Laxmi Gurjar D/o Shri Samay Singh Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Jagat-
pura, Post Makanpur, Tehsil Karauli, Distt. Karauli (Raj.)
----Respondent
(88) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 998/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
Gunesh Kumar S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Jaton Ka Bera (Sarla),
Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(89) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 999/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Secondary Education, De-
partment Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Range, Jaipur.
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Range, Churu.
5. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Range, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(29 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Ran Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And
Post Jat Behror, Tehsil Mundawar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.).
2. Veer Datta Gurjar S/o Shri Lala Ram Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vil-
lage And Post Dudhi, Via Gathwari, Tehsil Virat Nagar, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
3. Surendra Kumar Jat S/o Shri Nanu Ram Jat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vil-
lage And Post Khorashyamdas, Via Jaitpura, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.).
4. Sita Ram Bunker S/o Shri Arjun Lal Bunker, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vil-
lage Kalighati, Post Bilonchi, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
(90) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1046/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Education Depart-
ment, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
3. The Joint Director (Training), Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan,
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur (Raj.)
5. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Suriyya Anjum D/o Shri Saeed Mukhtar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 110, Aman
Colony, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, (Raj.)
----Respondent
(91) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1080/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Deputy Secretary, Secondary
Education Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariate, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner (Rajasthan)
3. Joint Director, (School Education), Kota Division, Kota District, Kota Raj.
4. District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Baran , District- Baran (Ra-
jasthan)
5. Chief Block Education Officer, Block Shahbad, District-Baran (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Usha Rathore D/o Raj Singh Chauhan W/o Late Of Shri Surendra Singh
Rathore, By Caste Rathore, Aged About 39 Years, Residence Of The H.no.
2-T-1, Mahavir Nagar -Iii, Kota, District-Kota (Rajasthan). (Presently Work-
ing As Senior Teacher (Grade-Ii) In The Govt. Senior Secondary School,
Kasbanonera, Shahbad, District-Baran (Rajasthan). (Rpsc Merit No.3046
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(30 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Ge, We, Wd,)
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Deeksha Jain D/o Mukesh Jain, (Rpsc Merit No.3168 (Ge, We, Wd)) Work-
ing As A Senior Teacher Sanskirt In Govt. Senior Secondary School, Digod
(Sangod), Kota District - Kota. (Raj.) ( Res. Of H.no. E-3 Near Dumb And
Deaf School, Keshavpura Second Township, Ladpura, Kota.
----Respondents
(92) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1081/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Secondary Education Depart-
ment, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan
3. The Deputy Director Of Education (Secondary), Udaipur Division, Udaipur
----Appellants
Versus
Mamta Kumari D/o Shri Bhinwa Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Post Bajor,
Tehsil And District Sikar (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
(93) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1144/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director Secondary Education, Jaipur Zone Jaipur.
4. The Deputy Director Secondary Education, Churu Zone Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
Sunita Yadav D/o Sube Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Khanpur Ahir, Tehsil
Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(94) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1072/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Appellants
Versus
Phool Chand Harijan S/o Mukana Ram Harijan, Aged About 39 Years, By Caste
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(31 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Harijan (Sc), Village Patusar, Post Dhilsar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu
----Respondent
(95) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1073/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education Depart-
ment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur
----Appellants
Versus
Sunita Bai Yadav D/o Shri Hari Kishan Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village
Roopwas Thikari, Post Toda, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar
----Respondent
(96) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1243/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Govern-
ment Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Vikash Yadav S/o Phool Chand Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Dhani Bawari, Village Khojawala, Post Ghasipura, District Jaipur, Ra-
jasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(97) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1244/2019
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Education De-
partment, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu
4. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur Division, Jaipur
----Appellants
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(32 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Versus
Chauth Mal Jat S/o Shri Godaram Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Samarpura, Post Bansa, Via Samod, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur
----Respondent
(98) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1245/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mangla Ram S/o Chanda Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Harpaliya,
Tehsil Serwa, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(99) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1246/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali Division, Pali
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Pradeep Kumar S/o Chander Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No.
25, Near Nawal Public School, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(100) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1247/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(33 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
Sapana D/o Jagdish Ram W/o Nirmal Bagariya, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village
Dligoli Vaya Tatanwa, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(101) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1249/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Suman D/o Girdhari Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Khoor, District
Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
(102) D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1250/2019
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota.
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu Division, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sunil Kumar Goswami S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo
Jorawarpura, Vaya Rawatsar, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Ra-
jasthan.
2. Govind Ram S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Vpo 4
Ksp, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(34 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
3. Mukesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo
Kishorpura, Via Ponkh, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Rajesh Kumar S/o Dayanand Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Nand,
Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
5. Kurda Ram S/o Duni Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Post Sonari, Village
Maliya, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ganesh Meena, AAG,
Mr. Sorabh Sharma &
Mr. Kapil Meena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Govind Sharma
Mr. Nitin Jain for RPSC
Mr. Braham Prakash Yadav
Mr. Sudhir Yadav,
Mr. Akshit Gupta
Mr. A.S. Shekhawat,
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini,
Mr. Gaurav Sharma
Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj,
Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Laxmikant Sharma (Malpura)
Mr. Brijesh Bhardwaj
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Meena
Mr. Sandeep Kalwania
Mr. Dhoop Singh Poonia
Mr. Dheeraj Palia on behalf of
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Judgment Reserved on :: 19/08/2019, 27/08/2019 & 28/08/2019
Judgment Pronounced on :: 29/08/2019
By the Court (Per Hon'ble The Chief Justice):
1. There is delay in filing of some of the appeals; the same is
condoned. The applications under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act are allowed.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(35 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
2. These appeals question the correctness of a common judg-
ment and order of a learned Single Judge, concerning the se-
lection and appointment to the post of Senior Teacher under
the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971
(hereafter called "the 1971 Rules").
3. The brief facts of the case are that Senior Teachers recruited
under the 1971 Rules are, recruited and posted in 9 different
divisions. Their inter se seniority is separately maintained on
division-wise basis. Their transfer from one division to an-
other entails loss of seniority, under the Rules. Consequently,
allocation of divisions assumes some importance. The State
Government through a specific policy- contained in its guide-
lines of 04.03.2018, endeavored to introduce transparency in
allocations of divisions; such exercise was to be determined
on the basis of merit-cum-preference (having regard to the
relative success) of the candidates in the recruitment
process. This, of course, was subject to availability of vacan-
cies in the respective divisions.
4. Complaining about denial of allocation of suitable divisions
having regard to their merit and preference, at the stage of
appointment as Senior Teachers, and further alleging that in-
dividuals less merited than them were assigned division pref-
erence of their choice, the respondents (hereafter "the writ-
petitioners" or "the aggrieved candidates") approached this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their
complaint was, in many instances, that as Meritorious Re-
served Category ("MRC" hereafter) candidates, they were
treated as general category candidates and consequently de-
nied the benefit of reserved category seats in the concerned
subjects, while allocation of the divisions of their choice. In
short, it was submitted by them that as MRC candidates they
were treated as open general category candidates and de-
prived of the preference of their division which was assigned
instead to less merited candidates from amongst the re-
served category candidates.
5. It was further argued that successful MRC candidates were
placed at a distinct disadvantage compared to reserved cate-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(36 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
gory candidates, who found their names in the select list in
the concerned reserved quota. This, according to the writ-
petitioners, was contrary to the decision of the Supreme
Court in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan & Ors. Vs. Akula
Ventaka Harshavardhan & Ors., 2018 SCC Online 1978. The
aggrieved candidates further argued that the guidelines of
04.03.2018 too, were overlooked when the division alloca-
tions were made, based upon the recommendations of the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereafter "the RPSC").
The writ-petitioners, furthermore, highlighted that the rec-
ommendations were received from the RPSC on truncated
and installment basis; which resulted in a distorted picture,
inasmuch as less merited candidates in various subjects
were allocated their preferential choice of division, whereas
meritorious candidates belonging to the reserved category
(MRC) were denied such benefit in the concerned subjects.
6. The State resisted the writ petitions contending that the
RPSC's recommendations were received from time to time
having regard to the document verification process. It was
further submitted that the MRC candidates were not placed
at a disadvantage because no one could claim a right to a
particular division having regard to the availability of vacan-
cies in the concerned subjects. It was furthermore argued
that the State Government was under pressure to fill the
post of Senior Teachers; that cadre had witnessed a large
number of vacancies and necessarily in public interest alloca-
tions had to be and were made, as soon as possible depend-
ing on receipt of recommendations. The State furthermore
submitted that if within the same list of recommendations
forwarded by the RPSC, discrepancies are noticed -inasmuch
as the candidates lower in the list, were given preferential al-
lotment, compared to MRC candidates who were higher in
merit, and who were denied their preference- corrective ac-
tion would be taken.
7. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the writ-pe-
titioners' arguments were merited, as the MRC candidates,
treated as general category candidates on the basis of their
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(37 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
performance, could not have been deprived of their choice
allocations given that they were more merited than the con-
cerned reserved category candidates. The Single Judge relied
on Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan (supra). The operative di-
rections and findings of the Single Judge are to the following
effect:-
"Consequently I would direct that in determining
the preference of the MRC candidates for alloca-
tion of ranges/ divisions as Senior Teachers they
be considered against the reserved category posts
in each of the division/ range for which they have
sought allocation on the basis of their inter se
merit vis-a-vis other reserved category candi-
dates.
I am also of the considered view that the mere
fact that the RPSC made recommendations in a
truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the
candidates lower in the select list or any right
over those higher in merit in the select list for the
purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit
cum preference. Even otherwise in the course of
hearing the petition/s it has transpired that the
deficiencies in the verification process were recti-
fied by the concerned higher placed selected can-
didates much before the order of allocation of di-
visions/ ranges to those lower in the merit in the
select list drawn pursuant to the advertisement
dated 13.07.2016. And it cannot with any plausi-
bility be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr.-
Ganesh Meena, that where in the same list of rec-
ommendations by RPSC candidates, candidates
higher in merit in the respective category have
been denied their preference of allocation of
ranges/ divisions while those lower in the same
category were given their preference in the allo-
cation, the respondents are under an obligation
to make the requisite correction in view of the se-
lected candidates' legitimate expectation and en-
sure firm adherence to the State Government's
own guidelines of 04.03.2018.
It is no doubt true that the exercise of allocation
of divisions/ ranges to Senior Teachers selected
pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016
has largely been completed. It is also true that
redoing of the said exercise in the whole or part
as would be necessitated by strict adherence to
the guidelines of 04.03.2018 would entail some
amount of disruption. That however by itself can-
not suffice for this court to condone substantial
contravention of the respondent-State Govern-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(38 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
ment's guidelines dated 04.03.2018. Law, fair-
ness and justice not expediency has to prevail.
The academic year 2018-19 has been concluded.
The new academic year 2019-20 is to commence
only in the month of July 2019 as stated by Mr.-
Ganesh Meena, AAG. In these circumstances no
serious unmanageable disruption in the coming
academic calendar of the concerned schools is
likely to be caused in the event the State Govern-
ment were to be directed to strictly adhere to its
guidelines of 04.03.2018 for allocation of ranges/
divisions to the Senior Teacher selected pursuant
to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016."
8. The State argues that the impugned judgment is in serious
error inasmuch as it overlooks that the questions relating to
posting of successful candidates appointed pursuant to a re-
cruitment process, are matters in the realm of pure adminis-
trative functions, where the scope of judicial review is limited
and narrow. It is contended that the impugned order re-
sulted in serious disruption of the entire select list. In this re-
gard it is stated that cadre of Senior Teacher is maintained
division-wise; reservation rules, therefore, were applicable in
individual divisions. Having regard to the fact that the State
is divided into 9 divisions, the determination of vacancies
was done division-wise; even that was made on the basis of
different subjects. Recommendations were received by the
State on separate dates. In this regard the State relies upon
a tabular statement, which indicates the relative dates on
which the recommendations were received from the RPSC.
9. It is submitted that having regard to the large number of va-
cancies and the overarching public interest in ensuring that
the Senior Teachers were assigned their divisions and con-
cerned schools at the earliest possible time, allocations were
made division-wise having regard to the dates on which the
recommendations were received. It was contended that since
no candidate has an inherent right to claim that the division
of his/her choice has to necessarily be assigned to him/her,
the Single Judge ought to have desisted from issuing the di-
rection to rework the allocations.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(39 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
10. Learned counsel appearing for the candidates, argued that
the Single Judge correctly appreciated the guidelines. It was
pointed out that the guidelines were framed as a first-time
measure to introduce transparency in regard to allocation.
No doubt, the RPSC's recommendations were received by the
State on different dates; yet the Government ought to have
ensured that the guidelines were adhered to rather than
breached. The MRC candidates who performed better than
other reserved category candidates were placed at a distinct
disadvantage inasmuch as their preference in most instances
was overlooked and candidates selected on the basis of
reservation, (and also lower to the MRC candidates in merit)
have managed to secure preferential allocations despite their
relatively lesser merit ranking. It was submitted that the de-
cision in Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan (supra) was, there-
fore, a clear binding authority which could not have been
overlooked.
Analysis and Conclusions:
11. In the present cases, about 9000 vacancies were involved in
the recruitment process. The recommendations received by
the State Government from the RPSC on different dates,
have been complied in a tabular statement; the translated
tabular statement (which includes details of the dates on
which recommendations were received, having regard to the
different subjects) is reproduced as below:-
Subject Date of receipt of Number of Date of Number of Date of Number of
recommendation candidates receipt of candidates allotment objected
recommended option allotted the of divi- application
by the Com- form Division sion forms
mission
03.05.18 444
16.05.18 886 20.09.18
25 (dated
11.06.18 305 & 1643 25.09.18
15.10.18)
14.06.18 06 22.09.18
Hindi 22.09.18 28
02 (dated
01.10.18 72 02.10.18 70 05.10.18
15.10.18)
09.10.18 31 25.10.18 58 30.10.18 28 (dated
26.10.18 56 27.10.18 02 05.11.18 14.11.18)
Sanskrit 05.06.18 867
11.06.18 807
20.09.18
14.06.18 776 09 (dated
& 2991 25.09.18
22.09.18 542 02.10.18)
22.09.18
In compliance of
15
Court
01.10.18 270 02.10.18 258 05.10.18 12 (dated
15.10.18)
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(40 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
09.10.18 46 25.10.18 78 30.10.18 38 (dated
26.10.18 92 27.10.18 21 06.11.18 14.11.18)
27.03.18 1627 31.03.18
24 (dated
03.04.18 14 04.04.18 1618 12.04.18
02.04.18)
05.04.18 01 06.04.18
19.04.18 03 19.04.18 03 19.04.18
19.04.18 304 08 (dated
16.05.18 93 02.10.18)
General
11.06.18 05 27.09.18 386 30.10.18
Science 19 (dated
In compliance of
11 15.10.18)
Court
03 (dated
01.10.18 95 03.10.18 92 05.10.18
15.10.18)
09.10.18 35 25.10.18 38 (dated
67 30.10.18
26.10.18 70 27.10.18 14.11.18)
09.04.18 644
11.04.18 01
19.04.18 57 02 (dated
24.04.18 02 02.10.18)
27.09.18 824 29.09.18
16.05.18 109 09 (dated
11.06.18 20 15.10.18)
English
In compliance of
05
Court
02 (dated
01.10.18 18 03.10.18 15 05.10.18
15.10.18)
09.10.18 05 25.10.18 23 (dated
14 30.10.18
26.10.18 32 27.10.18 14.11.18)
19.04.18 401 04 (dated
18.05.18 115 24.09.18)
11.06.18 04 05 (dated
27.09.18 536 29.09.18
02.10.18)
In compliance of
37 10 (dated
Maths Court
15.10.18)
05 (dated
01.10.18 21 03.10.18 16 05.10.18
15.10.18)
07 30.10.18 24 (dated
26.10.18 36 27.10.18
05 06.11.18 14.11.18)
08 (dated
15.03.18 231 16.03.18 223 02.04.18
02.04.18)
05.04.18 30 12.04.18 30 16.04.18
19.04.18 06
18.05.18 07
03 (dated
11.06.18 02
Science 27.09.18 15 30.09.18 24.09.2018
14.06.18 01
)
In compliance of
02
Court
01.10.18 08 03.10.18 07 05.10.18
06 (dated
09.10.18 01 25.10.18
06 30.10.18 14.11.18)
26.10.18 10 27.10.18
01 (dated
20.03.18 38 22.03.18 37 04.04.18
03.04.18)
19.04.18 08
27.09.18 12 29.09.18
Urdu 18.05.18 04
01.10.18 01 03.10.18 01 05.10.18
02 (dated
26.10.18 03 27.10.18 01 30.10.18
14.11.18)
Punjabi 13.03.18 25 - 25 02.04.18 -
12. The translated guidelines of 04.03.2018, are extracted be-
low:-
"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
Education (Group-2) Department
No. - Pa.17(7) Shiksha-2/2016 Jaipur, Dated :
04/03/2018
Director,
Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(41 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
Bikaner
Subject: Guidelines regarding posting of senior teachers
selected through direct recruitment.
Sir,
With reference to above Cited subject matter, I am di-
rected to state that the guidelines for posting of senior
teachers selected through direct recruitment are as fol-
lows -
A. Process of Allocation of Division
Candidates equal to the number of posts advertised divi-
sion wise will be allotted to that division by the Director,
Secondary education Rajasthan Bikaner. Vacancies
(Without reservation) of the subject of senior teachers
are counted division - wise. Thus, the Category wise
(General/reserved categories- wise(Women
/SC/ST/OBC/NBC/PH/Ex Servicemen/Widow/divorcee
etc.) division will be allotted as per the priority of the di-
vision given by the Candidates on the basisof category-
wise merit in accordance with the number of posts ad-
vertised.
B. Process of posting at divisional level after allocation of
division
1. The process of selection of Vacant posts of related
subjects for posting - The clear Vacancies for posting of
selected Candidates made available to the Division will
be determined district-wise in proportion to the numbers
of Vacancies clearly available to the senior teacher of the
subject concerned in all the districts of the Division.
2. For Counseling of the Candidates available to the Divi-
sion with regard to posting, schools in proportion to the
Vacancies available district-wise will be displayed as un-
der :-
(i) Secondary schools/ Higher secondary Schools with
vacancies of subjects relating to senior teachers having
more than 50% of the academic post vacant (in de-
creasing order of enrollment from class 9 to class 10)
(ii) If the number of schools available in point number (i)
is less than the number of candidates, then Secondary
Schools/ Higher secondary schools with vacant post of
concerned subjects of senior teachers (in decreasing or-
der of enrollment from class 9 to class 10)
(iii) If the number of schools available in point number
(i) and (ii) is less than the number of candidate then Up-
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(42 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
per primary school with vacant posts of subjects pertain-
ing to senior teacher (in decreasing order of enrollment
from class 1 to class 8)
3. The posting will be made only on the clearly vacant
post.
4. For TSP appointment, compliance of the provisions of
the TSP appointment rules should be ensured.
5. Determination of the order of seniority for posting of
the senior teachers selected by the direct recruitment is
as under:-
(i) More than 40% of specially abled candidates (in order
of merit of Rajasthan Public Service Commission)
(ii) Widow and Divorcee women (in order of merit of Ra-
jasthan Public Service Commission)
(iii)Women candidates (in order of merit of Rajasthan
Public Service Commission)
(iv) Other remaining candidates (in order of merit of Ra-
jasthan Public Service Commission)
6. List of vacancies prepared by Deputy Director, Sec-
ondary Education as per sub-point Number 1, 2 and 3 of
the point number(B) and priority list prepared as per
point Number 5 will be published on departmental web-
site and on the office notice board and counseling camp
will be held in order of preference prescribe in the prior-
ity list.
7. Order for posting of selected vacancies in the counsel-
ing camp will be issued by the personal on the day of
the camp and will be published on the website and office
notice board.
8. The senior teachers, who will be absent in the process
of counseling, their order of posting will be issued on the
day of camp itself from the vacancies published by the
Deputy Director, Secondary Education and will be pub-
lished on the website and office notice board.
9. Orders should be issued after proper scrutiny of all
the available vacancies and after checking correct details
and whereabouts of the personnel, no errors. In case of
institutional errors, departmental enquiry against the
concerned may be ensured.
Sd/
Deputy Director"
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(43 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
13. The issue of giving weightage and- as far as possible- giving
effect to the preference of a candidate who secures a high
ranking in the merit list, while allocating a cadre (much in
the same manner as the allocation of the preferred division,
as in this case), was a subject matter of a Constitution Bench
ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ramesh
Ram & Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 234. In that decision, the Court
resolved the conflict between different judgments. The ques-
tion was whether a merited reserved category candidate
(MRC), pushed up into the general category merit list and
treated as an open merit candidate, can be placed at a dis-
advantageous position vis-a-vis a reserved category candi-
date in regard to allocation of cadre, especially when the less
merited candidate is granted the cadre of his/her choice. The
Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"32. There is an obvious distinction be-
tween qualifying through an entrance test for se-
curing admission in a medical college and quali-
fying in the UPSC examinations since the latter
examination is conducted for filling up vacancies
in the various civil services. In the former case,
all the successful candidates receive the same
benefit of securing ad- mission in an educational
institution. However, in the latter case there are
variations in the benefits that accrue to success-
ful candidates because they are also competing
amongst themselves to secure the service of
their choice. For example, most candidates opt
for at least one of the first three services [i.e. In-
dian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign
Service (IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)]
when they are asked for preferences. A majority
of the candidates prefer IAS as the first option.
In this respect, a Re- served Category candidate
who has qualified as part of the general list
should not be disadvantaged by being assigned
to a lower service against the vacancies in the
General Category especially because if he had
availed the benefit of his Reserved Category sta-
tus, he would have got a service of a higher pref-
erence. With the obvious intention of preventing
such an anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an
MRC candidate is at liberty to choose between
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(44 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
the general quota or the respective Reserved
Category quota.
***********
36. We must also take note of the fact that when MRC candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the same creates corre- sponding vacancies in the General Merit List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacancies are of course filled up by general can- didates. Likewise, when MRC candidates are subsequently adjusted against the General Cate- gory [i.e. without availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)], the same will result in vacancies in the Re- served Category which must in turn be filled up by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Moreover, the operation of Rule 16 does not result in the ouster of any of the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the wait-listed candi- dates are accommodated in the second stage, and the relatively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are excluded. It is pertinent to note that these excluded candidates never had any absolute right to recruitment or even any expectation that they would be recruited. Their chances de- pend on how MRC candidates are adjusted.
37. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned that allocation to a particu- lar post cannot be distinguished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. How- ever, the High Court had not considered the fact that in the CSE examination, the candidates are not competing for similar posts in one service but are instead competing for posts in different services that correspond to varying preferences.
38. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the possibility that when an SC/ST/OBC candidate qualifies on merit (i.e. without any relaxation/concession) there can be a situation where a lower ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate sim- ply because the higher ranked OBC candidate per- formed well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High Court's re- liance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v Satya Prakash (supra.), is not tenable since it dealt with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4.12.2004.
***********
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)
(45 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
72. We sum up our answers-:
(i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved cate- gory should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates.
(ii).....
(iii)....
(iv) The reserved category candidates "be- longing to OBC, SC/ ST categories" who are se- lected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution."
14. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of cadre or division, according to the preference sought from candi- dates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the fairness of the process of allocation.
15. The peculiar condition that the State finds itself in today, is because it proceeded to make final allocations of the divi- sions having regard to the available materials, i.e. recom- mendations received at different times, from RPSC and the vacancy position that was available at the time of receipt of such recommendations. There is some merit in the State's submission that posting orders of the selected candidates could not have been withheld to await receipt of recommen- dations to all the posts. Public interest of course, dictated that the teachers recruited be assigned duties as early as practically feasible. Yet, that did not mean that final alloca- tions had to be made at the stage of assigning duties. No doubt, the cadre of Senior Teachers is maintained division- wise. Yet, the recruitment was by a common process; the rules applicable were the same and the procedure adopted (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM) (46 of 47) [SAW-815/2019] too was the same. This meant that if there were some delays in forwarding recommendations, the allocations of concerned divisions had to be made finally. Until the entire picture emerged with regard to recommendation of candidates, the State could have well made provisional cadre allocations, which could have been finalized, after all recommendations had been received. In such latter event, the State would have been able to ensure that MRC candidates had a choice to seek the division which they wanted, given their relative merit ranking. In such an event, by application of the rule in- dicated in Para 72 (iv) of the judgment in Ramesh Ram (supra), MRC candidates would have been provided with a choice of being treated as those belonging to the general category, or being treated as reserved category candidates.
16. In the light of the above discussion, the Court is of opinion that the findings and conclusions recorded by the Single Judge are reasonable. The following directions are conse- quently issued:
(a) The State shall issue a circular/order within four weeks, expressly stating that cadre allocations (to different divisions) made are only provisional and that such allocations would be made finally in a time bound manner, to be clearly indicated in such an or- der or circular;
(b) Await the receipt of all recommendations for 3 months and thereafter take up the process of deter-
mination of cadre allocations, in accordance with the rules and circulars applicable and complete such cadre allocations within 6 months from today;
(c) The State is further directed that cadre allocations made finally pursuant to the above directions, shall not be treated as transfers, but instead as revised initial postings of the concerned teachers.
(d) The circular issued pursuant to the above directions shall also mention that it has been issued pursuant to the present order.
(Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM)(47 of 47) [SAW-815/2019]
17. The State's appeals therefore have to fail. They are according dismissed, subject to the above directions.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR/(Reserved) 4 to 96 (19.08.19)/ s-117 to 121 (27.08.2019)/s-173 & 174 (28.08.2019) (Downloaded on 31/08/2019 at 09:12:47 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)