Poonam Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6930 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6930 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Poonam Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

(1 of 5) [CW-2218/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2218/2021 Lachmi D/o Shri Bhukan Sing W/o Shri Ricky Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of House No. 26, Street No. 8, Setia Colony, Sri Ganganagar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar. At Present Posted As Teacher Gr. III Level II (Social Science) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Fatehpura, Ramdevpura, Panchayat Jakhron Ki Dhani, Tehsil And District Barmer.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Barmer.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.

5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Barmer, District Barmer.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1679/2021 Kamna Khoth D/o Shri Mohanlal Khoth, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 1, Chak 4Stg, Makkasar, District Hanumangarh. At Present Posted As Teacher Gr. III Level II (Social Science) At Govt. Upper Primary School, Jakharo Ki Dhani, Chochwa Dabli, Sayla, Jalore

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jalore

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.

5. Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Sayla, District Jalore.

----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3509/2021 Poonam Yadav D/o Shri Santram Yadav W/o Shri Vikas Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village 10 Sdp Vpo Lalgarh Jattan, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III (Level II) (English) At Govt. Senior Secondary School, Soniyana, Block Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh

(2 of 5) [CW-2218/2021]

(Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sri Ganganagar.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3586/2021 Kanchan W/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Ward No.9, Street No.3, Near Tower, Purani Aabadi, Sri Ganganagar, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar, Presently Posted As Teacher Grade III (Level II) (Hindi) At Govt. Primary School, Chatra, Block Chattargarh, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Bikaner

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sri Ganganagar.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Hanumangarh.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG Mr. Kailash Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

10/03/2021

1. By way of present writ petitions, 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

(3 of 5) [CW-2218/2021]

persons who have been offered appointment vide list dated

03.09.2018, 05.03.2019 & 06.04.2019 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. Manish Vyas, learned AAG, 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

(4 of 5) [CW-2218/2021]

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, all these writ petitions are 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.