Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramchandra Bishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 September, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5753/2020 Nirmla Jat D/o Raichand Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Vpo Nagdi Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagour At Present Working On The Post Of Teacher Grade Ii (Hindi) At Govt. Senior Secondary School Madpura Tehsil Khinvsar District Nagour (Raj.).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Education Department (Secondary) Through Its Director, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.).
3. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer Zone, Ajmer (Raj.).
4. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Pali Zone, Pali (Raj.).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi Mr. Kailash Jangid Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary Mr. Inderjeet Yadav Mr. Sushil Solanki Mr. Madhu Lal Deora Mr. K. R. Saharna Mr. Devi Lal Rawla Mr. Surendra Singh Choudhary Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary Mr. RJ Punia Mr. Kan Singh Oad Mr. Kailash Meghwal Mr. Tanwar Singh Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chotia Mr. Sumit Singhal Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal Mr. Shree Kant Verma Mr. Ramniwas Mr. Vinod Choudhary All through Jitsi Meet App For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary with Mr. Vishal Jangid (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (2 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 14/09/2020
1. The petitioners, involved in the present group of writ petitions (enumerated in the Schedule appended with the present order, which be treated an intergral part of this order), have approached this Court being aggrieved of the State's action of reshuffling of divisions and allotment of new division vide order dated 20.07.2020.
2. For the purpose of present controversy, facts apropos are narrated in para No. 3 to 8 infra:-
3. The petitioners herein were selected and given appointment as Senior Teacher Grade - II in various subjects, pursuant to advertisement dated 13.07.2016.
4. It is pertinent that some candidates, selected pursuant to the advertisement in question, were given posting according to their merit cum preference consequent to counselling.
5. Some of the selected candidates, did not join, for which candidates from reserve list were considered and offered appointment.
6. Some candidates filed a writ petition at Jaipur Bench of this Court interalia raising a grievance that persons less meritorious than them had been given postings of their choice, whereas despite having secured higher marks, they were not allotted the desired divisions/postings, as they stood occupied by the candidates though lower in merit.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(3 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
7. Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur in its judgment dated 2.4.2019 (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 23680/2018: Sunita Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and Division Bench in its judgment dated 29.08.2019 rendered in DB SAW No.815/2019 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. V. Poonam Sharma) exhaustively considered the law on the subject and gave comprehensive directions. The operative portion of the Division Bench Judgment reads thus :
"15.............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 indicated 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 consequently 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 order or circular;(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(4 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
(b) Await the receipt of all recommendations for 3 months and thereafter take up the process of determination 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.
17. The State's appeals therefore have to fail. They are according dismissed, subject to the above directions."
8. The Petitioners, herein, have raised a number of grievances. But the genesis of all grievance lies in the contention/allegation that the respondents have not followed the above directions in its letter and spirit.
9. Sheet anchor of their argument was that neither guidelines dated 19.06.2020 & 26.06.2020 are, nor State's action is in sync with the judgment of Division Bench rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan V. Poonam Sharma (supra).
10. It was highlighted that the respondents have invited options only from the candidates whose zones/divisions, according to them (on the basis of their merit position), were going to be changed.
11. The relevant part [Para No.B (1)] of the guidelines dated 19.06.2020 reads thus :
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(5 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
"B fj'kQy lEHkkx vkoaVu ds i'pkr~ inLFkkiu dh izfdz;k :-
ofj"B v/;kid (fofHkUu fo"k;) HkrhZ ijh{kk - 2016 ds fj'kQy vkoaVu i'pkr~ ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lEHkkx ifjorZu gks jgk gS dsoy mUgha vH;fFkZ;ksa को uohu vkoafVr lEHkkx esa inLFkkiu gsrq Counselling Camp (ijke'kZ f'kfoj) lfEefyr fd;k tk;sxk rFkk ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk fj'kQy vkoaVu i'pkr~ lEHkkx ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSa mudk inLFkkiu LFkku ;Fkkor~ jgsxkA"
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards notice dated 26.06.2020, which was accompanied by a list containing particulars of around 3000 candidates.
13. The moot question which needs to be examined, is, whether the State has followed the Division Bench judgment and the law on the subject? or as to whether the guidelines/circulars issued by the State are in-tandem with the Division Bench judgment.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the State was not justified in confining the option only to the candidates whose divisions were going to change. According to them, the Division Bench judgment in case of State of Rajasthan V. Poonam Sharma (supra) was unequivocal and the State was required to give option to all the candidates, irrespective of the fact whether their division were going to be changed or not.
15. It was argued that even if a candidate's division was not likely to change, still he/she ought to have been given chance to opt for another District or another school at a vacant position, in light of the State's Circular dated 04.03.2018.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that after allotment of division, the options simplicitor were asked without notifying category-wise total vacant posts; the candidates have (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (6 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] been accommodated only against the position, which were lying vacant or fell vacant pursuant to reshuffle.
17. Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that a perusal of the reply and the position of allotment of vacant posts leaves not even an iota of doubt. He added that, no lesser meritorious candidate has been given better posting. Candidates having higher merit or meritorious reserve category candidates have been considered in their own category.
18. Learned Government Counsel submitted that the State has rightly invited options from only those candidates whose divisions were changed, as per their merit position. He tried to justify respondents' action by saying that it was done with a view to avoid unnecessary exercise of inviting option from all the candidates. He emphasised that the respondents had done their homework or in house exercise and thereafter invited options only from those candidates whose divisions were going to be changed.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondents have complied with the judgment of Single Judge Bench so also the Division Bench and as there was no direction to change the posting (within the Division) in terms of Para-B of the Circular dated 04.03.2018, such exercise has not been done and that is why the position/posting which were held by the teachers, whose division remained intact, were not shown in the list of available schools/vacant seats.
20. It was also admitted by Mr. Choudhary that the posts held by the teachers, whose divisions have not been changed, have not been reflected in the list published and the exercise in question (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (7 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] has been carried out on the basis of vacant seats (ignoring the post held by the teachers whose divisions have not been changed).
21. He however submitted that even if a further direction is issued to comply with Clasue-B of the circular dated 04.03.2018; it is not necessary that the petitioners, who are 76 in number will be given desired or satisfactory posting, as that too would be given in accordance with their merit/preference. He added that if the entire exercise is ordered to be done qua 5212 teachers, it will lead to unnecessary shifting of the teachers, who have already accepted their postings.
22. Heard.
23. It is true that the Division Bench has expressly and unequivocally directed the State to invite options from all the candidates. No leeway was given to the State to invite options only from the candidates whose divisions were likely to be changed.
24. Stand of the State is not in conformity with the Division Bench judgment dated 29.08.2019 rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Poonam Sharma (supra).
25. It is to be noted that not only the Division Bench judgment even the guidelines dated 19.06.2020 envisages that after allotment of division, the preference would be given as under : -
**6- fj'kQy lEHkkx vkoaVu ds i'pkr~ ofj"B v/;kid ds inLFkkiu gsrq ofj;rk dze dk fu/kkZj.k fuEu dze esa fd;k tkosa :-
(a) 40 izfr'kr ls vf/kd fnO;kax vH;FkhZ (jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dh esfjV ds dze esa) (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (8 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
(b) fo/kok ,oa ifjR;drk efgyk (jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dh esfjV ds dze esa)
(c) efgyk vH;FkhZ (jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dh esfjV ds dze esa )
(d) 'ks"k vU; vH;FkhZ (jktLFkku yksd lsok vk;ksx dh esfjV ds dze esa) "
26. An additional affidavit has been filed by the respondent - State on 03.09.2020 interalia setting out in detail the process of allotment of division adopted by them.
27. Having gone through the additional affidavit and process chalked out therein, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have adhered to the directions of the Division Bench given on 29.08.2019 and so also the guideline dated 04.03.2018 so far as allotment of Division/Range is concerned - All the candidates have been allotted division/range strictly in accordance with their merit/preference.
28. The issue which still concerns the Court or remains to be adjudicated upon is, whether the process so adopted by the respondents pursuant to the Division Bench's directions could be beyond the guidelines dated 04.03.2018.
29. A careful reading of the Judgments of the Single Bench in Suman Meena (supra) and Division Bench in State of Rajasthan Vs. Poonam Sharma (supra) reveals that the issue which was canvassed, considered and decided was confined to allotment/allocation of Division/Range only. The Division Bench has noticed the Circular dated 04.03.2018 and para 6 of Part B of the Circular and has given general direction to comply with the same.
30. This Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioners that the respondents were required not only to comply (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (9 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] with the Para-A of the guidelines dated 04.03.2018, they were equally obliged to give posting in accordance with Part 'B' of the circular aforesaid, once divisions are allotted.
31. As a matter of fact, after allocation of divisions, the respondents ought to have published category-wise position of all the respective schools in the concerned division, which has admittedly not been done by the respondents. Consequently, limited vacant seats were made available to the petitioners for giving their choices.
32. This Court finds that the respondents have not adhered to the guidelines dated 04.03.2018. Subsequent guidelines dated 19.06.2020, particularly para No. B (1) thereof (reproduced in para No. 11 above), issued by the respondent - State, are contrary to its parimateria stipulations in the Circular dated 04.03.2018.
33. Strictly speaking impugned exercise done by the respondents is incomplete and cannot stand the scrutiny on the anvil of fairness and reasonableness, but given the fact that all the teachers have now been allotted appropriate divisions/ranges on the basis of their merit cum preference and almost all of them (except 76 petitioners herein) are satisfied, direction to undertake the de novo exercise in the era of spread of pandemic COVID-19 may lead to undesired disturbance, which in the opinion of this Court, should be avoided.
34. There is yet another reason, for which this Court does not deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to undertake the exercise afresh. Seniority of the teachers is reckoned division wise. Now all the teachers have been allotted the division (Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) (10 of 14) [CW-5753/2020] according to their merit cum preference. When it comes to posting, it has to be noted that they are subject to intra division transfers, hence, posting at a particular place cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Posting is only a matter of convenience, which can be addressed/redressed at a later point of time.
35. Hence, considering the submission of the State, as noticed in para No. 21 above and in view of the common consensus and alternative oral submission of all the learned counsel for the respective petitioners, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of all the concerned, particularly the candidates (who are not before this Court) to dispose of all the writ petitions with following directions:-
(i) The State shall publish latest subject-wise and category-
wise vacant position of each division on its website, within a period of 15 days from today.
(ii) All the petitioners herein may submit representations to the Director, giving choice(s) qua the vacant positions [out of their division(s)], so published by the State. Representation(s) be furnished within a period of four weeks from publication of such list.
(iii) The petitioners shall also be permitted to request for mutual transfer within their division.
(iv) The Director/Joint Director shall decide petitioners' representations within a period of four weeks thereafter, while trying to accommodate the petitioners in accordance with the preference given by them, of course, if the relevant law/guidelines so permit.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(11 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
(v) In case, petitioners' representations are rejected, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order under intimation to the concerned.
(vi) The petitioners will be free to take up their remedies against such orders, in accordance with law.
36. Interim orders, if any, shall continue till 30.11.2020.
37. All the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 111to186-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(12 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
SCHEDULE
S.No. Civil Writ Petition No. Petitioner(s) Respondents
1. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5842/2020 Pappu Ram Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
2. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5852/2020 Rajaram State of Raj. &
Ors.
3. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5861/2020 Satyawati Saran State of Raj. &
Ors.
4. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5866/2020 Laxman Singh State of Raj. &
Ors.
5. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5878/2020 Suresh State of Raj. &
Ors.
6. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5883/2020 Bheru Lal Pareek State of Raj. &
Ors.
7. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5889/2020 Bhanver Lal Yogi State of Raj. &
Ors.
8. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5918/2020 Surendra Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
9. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5919/2020 Poonam Bansal State of Raj. &
Ors.
10. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5921/2020 Naresh Bai Meena State of Raj. &
Ors.
11. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5923/2020 Ram Niwas State of Raj. &
Ors.
12. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5925/2020 Lala Ram State of Raj. &
Ors.
13. SB Civil Writ Petition No.5935/2020 Saroj Kaswan State of Raj. &
Ors.
14. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6050/2020 Shilochana Jakhar State of Raj. &
Ors.
15. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6085/2020 Ramchandra Bishnoi State of Raj. &
Ors.
16. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6086/2020 Krishan Kant Meena State of Raj. &
Ors.
17. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6097/2020 Neha Sharma State of Raj. &
Ors.
18. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6105/2020 Sarla Kumari State of Raj. &
Ors.
19. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6107/2020 Santra Sain State of Raj. &
Ors.
20. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6108/2020 Susheela Chhagan State of Raj. &
Ors.
21. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6116/2020 Ephat Janhan State of Raj. &
Ors.
22. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6118/2020 Laxman Swami State of Raj. &
Ors.
23. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6135/2020 Om Siyag State of Raj. &
Ors.
24. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6137/2020 Sonu Anand State of Raj. &
Ors.
25. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6153/2020 Nirmala Kaswan State of Raj. &
Ors.
26. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6156/2020 Mukesh Kumar State of Raj. &
Kumawat Ors.
27. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6157/2020 Rajendra Prasad State of Raj. &
Verma Ors.
28. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6159/2020 Om Prakash Saini State of Raj. &
Ors.
29. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6169/2020 Bhagwati Kumari State of Raj. &
Ors.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(13 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
30. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6171/2020 Pooja Dhindharia State of Raj. &
Ors.
31. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6173/2020 Pradeep Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
32. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6175/2020 Smt. Sunita State of Raj. &
Ors.
33. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6218/2020 Santosh Locchab State of Raj. &
Ors.
34. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6221/2020 Murli Dhar Swami State of Raj. &
Ors.
35. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6255/2020 Manohari State of Raj. &
Ors.
36. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6278/2020 Sumer Ram State of Raj. &
Ors.
37. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6343/2020 Om Prakash State of Raj. &
Ors.
38. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6353/2020 Prahalad Kumawat State of Raj. &
Ors.
39. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6355/2020 Mukesh State of Raj. &
Ors.
40. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6361/2020 Ajay Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
41. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6363/2020 Geeta Rani State of Raj. &
Ors.
42. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6364/2020 Ram Swaroom State of Raj. &
Ors.
43. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6374/2020 Bhanwar Lal Gurjar State of Raj. &
Ors.
44. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6380/2020 Bhanwar Lal State of Raj. &
Ors.
45. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6395/2020 Reena Kumari State of Raj. &
Ors.
46. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6400/2020 Anju Kumari State of Raj. &
Ors.
47. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6405/2020 Shyam Sunder Jatav State of Raj. &
Ors.
48. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6410/2020 Sandeep Kaur State of Raj. &
Ors.
49. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6414/2020 Prashila State of Raj. &
Ors.
50. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6415/2020 Vishnu Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
51. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6417/2020 Kiran Singaria State of Raj. &
Ors.
52. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6418/2020 Jagdish Prasad State of Raj. &
Ors.
53. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6419/2020 Lal Chand State of Raj. &
Ors.
54. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6420/2020 Satyaprakash State of Raj. &
Ors.
55. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6424/2020 Hans Raj State of Raj. &
Ors.
56. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6425/2020 Hansraj Verma State of Raj. &
Ors.
57. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6427/2020 Shivraj Barth State of Raj. &
Ors.
58. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6428/2020 Rajendra Kumar State of Raj. &
Ors.
59. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6459/2020 Jitendra Kumar Jatav State of Raj. &
Ors.
60. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6461/2020 Nisha State of Raj. &
Ors.
61. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6463/2020 Sunil Kumar State of Raj. &
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM)
(14 of 14) [CW-5753/2020]
Ors.
62. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6473/2020 Antima Kumari Meena State of Raj. & Ors.
63. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6513/2020 Krishna Prajapat State of Raj. & Ors.
64. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6537/2020 Dilip Kumar State of Raj. & Ors.
65. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6576/2020 Rajender Kumar State of Raj. & Ors.
66. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6604/2020 Kaushaliya State of Raj. & Ors.
67. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6605/2020 Ashok Kumar State of Raj. & Ors.
68. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6617/2020 Giriraj Bairwa State of Raj. & Ors.
69. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6628/2020 Ram Phal State of Raj. & Ors.
70. SB Civil Writ Petition No.6727/2020 Pramila Kaswan State of Raj. & Ors.
71. SB Civil Writ Petition No.7091/2020 Dau Ram State of Raj. & Ors.
72. SB Civil Writ Petition No.7130/2020 Himani Dangi State of Raj. & Ors.
(Downloaded on 15/09/2020 at 08:51:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)