Rajasthan High Court
Priyanka Kumari D/O Rajendra Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 January, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:285-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1682/2019
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6531/2019
Priyanka Kumari D/o Rajendra Prasad, aged about 23 Years,
Resident Of Nangal Khoriya, Tehsil-Behror, District-Alwar, Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Deputy Secretary Elementary
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, Additional Advocate
General
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 03/01/2024
1. This appeal directed against order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is mainly on the submission that once the candidate higher in order of merit, who was posted at Alwar did not join and the post fell vacant, the merit list was required to be reshuffled and the appellant ought to be considered in the changed circumstances on the basis of her merit for re-posting at her place of preference at Alwar. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of one Bindu Yadav, who had filed a petition seeking similar relief. Reliance has also been placed on (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:36:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019] judgments of this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Poonam Sharma (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019 and other connected matters decided on 29.08.2019) and Pooja Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.934/2023, decided on 13.12.2023).
2. Indisputably, when initially the merit list was drawn, the appellant was given posting at Udaipur taking into consideration her merit and preference. Moreover, at the initial stage of drawal of merit list and giving appointment at place according to merit and preference, none of the candidates lower in order of merit than the appellant were posted at Alwar.
3. It appears that subsequently number of vacancies including those at Alwar were not filled up on account of non-joining. At this stage, the appellant raised a claim that the list should now be reshuffled and she should be considered for posting at Alwar according to her preference and those in the reserve list who are lower in order of merit should not be considered for posting on the vacant post at Alwar.
4. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention while holding that The Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1971') do not permit such operation of the list, once the merit list has been exhausted and an occasion arose for operating reserve list as that will create an administrative chaos.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the case of Bindu Yadav also related to claim of place of posting and appointment does not merit acceptance as that was not decided on merits. It appears that initially an interim order was passed and (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:36:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019] thereafter she was given posting. The order passed by the Learned Single Judge in the case of Bindu Yadav only records that the respondent-State has given her posting.
6. The other two decisions in the case of Pooja Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (supra) and State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Poonam Sharma (supra) are completely distinguishable on facts. None of them deal with the contingency, which has been raised in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the Learned Single Judge while rejecting the claim has relied upon Rule 28 (2) of the Rules of 1971, whereas, the said Rule is not applicable as the appointments were made under the Service Rules applicable to Panchayat Services. On such submission made, we enquired from learned counsel for appellant as to whether there is any other rule applicable in appellant's case which supports her claim that when the vacancies are not filled up due to the non-joining of the candidates, the same procedure is required to be followed. However, no specific rule was brought to our notice.
Reliance on Para 10.3 of the Advertisement No.01/2016 dated 06.07.2016 under which the appellant was appointed, only deals with the drawal of the merit list. It does not expressly or even by implication suggest that where vacancies are not filled up due to non- joining, the entire exercise of redrawal of merit list and reshuffling of the candidates on the basis of their merit and preference is to be undertaken. Learned Single Judge has correctly held that if this is allowed as a matter of right, there will be administrative chaos as it will become an unending process and every time the merit list will have to be re-drawn. We also find that present is not a case where the appellant is seeking employment. It is only a matter relating to place (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:36:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019] of posting, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Diksha/Yogesh/49 (Downloaded on 28/01/2024 at 07:36:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)