Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Raj And Anr on 21 August, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13752 / 2017
Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Bhagirath, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village & Post Churela, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Director, Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
2. Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Order
21/08/2017
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved
in view of the adjudication made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No.
10232/2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.;
wherein after considering the grievances of the petitioners therein,
a consent order was made observing thus:
"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
(2 of 4)
[CW-13752/2017]
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 filled
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 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 8 th May, 2016 and 9 th May, 2016. While
applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to
redress the grievances of the petitioners.
(3 of 4)
[CW-13752/2017]
(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
dealt 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
in 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. The writ petitions stand
disposed off with the aforesaid period. A copy of this
order be placed in each connected file."
In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioner for posting against any vacant post in nearby area, in view of the observations made by this Court in the case of Rooplata Meena (Supra).
In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ (4 of 4) [CW-13752/2017] proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the State-respondents ventilating her grievance.
In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J. SS/206