Asha Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11843 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11843 Raj
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Asha Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 July, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6230/2021

Asha Yadav D/o Shri Mahendra Singh Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Khatankheda, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner 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.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

5. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary Education, Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

6. The Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Sheoganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Soni for Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

29/07/2021

1. Mr. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by a

decision dated 04.03.2021, passed by this Court in bunch of writ

petitions, led by Sanjay Kumar Gauttam vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors (SBCWP No.1676/2021).

(2 of 3) [CW-6230/2021]

2. Mr. Rishi Soni associate of Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG is not in

a position to dispute the aforesaid postition of facts and law. He,

however, submits that the State is in the process of preferring an

intra-court appeal challenging the judgment rendered in the case

of Sanjay Kumar Gauttam (supra).

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering that the judgment in Sanjay Kumar Gauttam

(supra) was passed relying upon the Division Bench judgment

dated 29.08.2019 passed in the case of Poonam Sharma (D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019), I am inclined to follow the

enunciation made in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gauttam

(supra).

4. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in light of

judgment rendered in case of Sanjay Kumar Gauttam (supra)

with the same directions as given in the said judgment, which

reads thus-

"(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.