Sagar Kunwar Chundawat vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8987 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8987 Raj
Judgement Date : 7 April, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sagar Kunwar Chundawat vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5094/2021

1. Sagar Kunwar Chundawat D/o Dindra Singh Chundawat, Aged About 28 Years, Village Salukhera, Post Brahamano Ka Kherwara, Tehsil Jhadol, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

2. Teena Parihar W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, 1264 Jhawahar Nagar, Ajmer, Dist. Ajmer, Raj.

3. Kavita Kumari Chauhan D/o Lal Chand Chauhan, Aged About 26 Years, Ahir Mohalla Baandi Budhanpur Jhalawar, Dist Jhalawar, Raj.

4. Renu Sharma D/o Satish Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, House No.343 Sector 33 Rajiv Colony Gali No.4, Ward No.20, Dist. Gurugram, Haryana.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Tanwar Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Kailash Choudhary for
                               Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

07/04/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners herein have

raised a grievance that after being appointed, they have joined at

the place(s) which were made available to them, whereas the

persons who have been offered appointment vide list dated

(2 of 4) [CW-5094/2021]

29.12.2020 for Level-1 and list dated 11.01.2021 for Level-2,

despite having lower merit positions, have been offered postings

vide order dated 18.01.2021 at places, which petitioners craved

for.

2. Petitioners participated in recruitment for Teacher Grade III

Level - 1 & 2 and were placed high in merit. All of them have been

given appointment/posting in January, 2020. Whereas in the lists

referred to in para 1 above, candidates lower in merit have been

offered the Districts which many of the petitioners were denied.

3. The reasons for such discrepancies are that many vacancies

arose out of the first list as, many did not turn up for document

verification, many were declared unsuccessful consequent to

document verification whereas many did not come to join.

4. Pursuant to direction(s) of this Court to fill the vacant posts

(given in Kuldeep Kumar's case), the State has allocated

districts/posts which remained unfilled for above three reasons.

Naturally, various candidates who were lower in merit have been

allotted postings or districts which were earlier not available to the

petitioners at the first stage.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

respondents be directed to follow the directions given by Division

Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Poonam Sharma (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019) dated

29.08.2019.

6. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, appearing for the respondents

submitted that while providing place of posting, the respondent-

State allotted only those posts in the districts, where the posts

remained unfilled/vacant. The petitioners who have already joined,

cannot be shifted now and thus, action of the respondent-State is

(3 of 4) [CW-5094/2021]

valid. He added that petitioners' prayer, if accepted, would pose

practical and procedural difficulties to the State and hardship to

many candidates.

7. In considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down by

Division Bench in its judgment dated 29.08.2019, though

pertained to recruitment of Senior Teachers, is equally applicable

to all the recruitments, where the posts are filled in phased

manner.

8. This being the position, this writ petition is disposed of with

the direction to the respondent-State to undertake the exercise as

has been ordered by the Division Bench in the case of Poonam

Sharma (supra).

9. For the sake of clarity, the directions issued by the Division

Bench in case of Poonam Sharma (supra) are reproduced

hereunder :-

(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;

(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.