Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Virender Singh vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 23 June, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7540 / 2017
Virender Singh S/o Lakhvinder Singh, Aged About 31 Years, By
Caste Jat Sikh, R/o Village 1 N, Post 25 F, Jagatwala, Tehsil
Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, School Education,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar
4. District Education Officer, Elementary, Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Vishal Jqangid
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,
VACATION JUDGE Order 23/06/2017
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7377/2017 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors.) decided on 20.06.2017.
2. The judgment passed by this Court on 20.06.2017 has passed the following order in Mukesh Kumar Vs. State & Ors. (Supra):-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10232/2016 "Smt.Rooplata Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors." involving an identical controversy, the Jaipur Bench of this Court has given liberty to (2 of 3) [CW-7540/2017] those litigants to submit a representation to the competent authority for ventilating their grievances and thus, the instant writ petition may also be decided in light thereof.
The prayer so made is justified. The Jaipur Bench of this Court decided the above bunch of writ petitions with the following directions:
"After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners and narrated above, it can be redressed, if representation is given by the petitioners within ten days from today and exercise is thereupon undertaken by the department in the following manner for which their exist agreement between the parties: (1) The petitioners would make a representation to the respondents raising their grievances against the order of posting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge of the posting. The representation aforesaid would be submitted within a period of ten days from today along with certified copy of this order. The respondent department i.e. Secondary as well as Elementary Education would immediately notify the vacant posts in different schools and out of which, in which school they are in need of a Teacher. If a vacant post exists in the school, but looking to the strength of the students, the Teacher may not be required then while notifying the vacant post in the school, it would be made clear by the department that against any post or posts, they do not need additional hands. It is agreed that if the department finds that additional hands are not required in a particular school or against a post, then such posts would not be illed by transfer for a period of three months. (2) The Teachers of Level II posted against the post of Level-I would be transferred back to their post immediately after getting the new recruitees or on availability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercise would be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer of Teachers Gr.III appointed on Level-I but transferred against the post of Level-II, if any. (3) The department would post the Teacher against the post meant for specialised subject if their recruitment was in a particular subject or (3 of 3) [CW-7540/2017] they are teaching the subject for years together. The Teacher of subject would be transferred to a post of the said subject only so that students may not suffer. (4) While undertaking the exercise, the department may take into consideration the guidelines issued on 8th May, 2016 and 9th May, 2016. While applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievances of the petitioners. (5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate their choice of school other than it is notified by the respondents. (6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would be dealth with by the department. The request can be accepted because in the case of mutual transfer, it would not affect any one which includes even the department. The prayer for mutual transfer would be between the employees of same level of the post and set up apart from subject, if any. (7) If the petitioners have already joined the post n pursuance of the orders under challenge, then their joining would not be taken adverse for disposal of the representation and carrying out the directions given. (8) Apart from the issues referred above, if any other issue exists to seek change of the place of transfer, the petitioners would be at liberty to make a representation showing the ground for it like posting of husband and wife at one place, illness, disability, retirement in few months or any such similar ground. (9) It is agreed that the representation would be considered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order."
Thus, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. Stay petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
3. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of in the aforementioned terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)V.J. sudheer