Om Prakash Jat vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7498 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7498 Raj
Judgement Date : 17 March, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Om Prakash Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 March, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3895/2021

Om Prakash Jat S/o Shri Shankar Lal Jat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Bilonchi, Tehsil Amer, Distt. Jaipur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan , Bikaner

3. The Joint Director (School Education), Udaipur Division, Udaipur

4. The Joint Director (School Education), Jaipur Division, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Bhawla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy. G.C.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Judgment

17/03/2021

1. The facts apropos are that the petitioner was selected as

Teacher Grade-II, Subject- Sanskrit and was issued appointment

order dated 05.09.2020, whereby he was allotted Udaipur Division

and was provided posting at Govt. Upper Primary School,

Bhilgatti, Bhadesar, District - Chittorgarh.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer that

he is suffering from blood cancer, thus, the respondents be

directed to change his Division to Jaipur.

3. The petitioner has placed on record reports dated

21.11.2015 and 16.10.2020 to show seriousness of his ailment.

4. Mr. V.S. Bhawla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is originally a native of Amer, District - Jaipur

(2 of 3) [CW-3895/2021]

and has been allotted Udaipur Division, of course as per his merit

position.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner is

having serious ailment, the respondents be directed to change his

Division in terms of the Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational &

Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the

Rules of 1971).

6. Mr. Vishal Jangid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submitted that the petitioner was allotted Division as

per his merit in the recruitment of 2018 and he cannot change his

Division, as a matter of right.

7. Mr. Jangid, however, submitted that as an exceptional case,

if petitioner's Division is ordered to be changed, the petitioner will

have to lose his seniority in terms of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971.

8. Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 reads thus:-

"(10) that the persons referred to in proviso(8) and proviso(9) are appointed on the same date, seniority inter-se of such persons shall be determined on the basis of their length of continuous service rendered in the same grade/equated posts in the private institution or Local Body, as the case may be. Explanation.- A person working on the post of Senior Teachers/Teacher or equivalent posts when transferred from one district/range to another district/range on his own request shall be placed just below the junior most person in seniority list of the new district/range from the date of taking over the charge in the new district/range and will cease to have any right of his seniority in the district/range from which he has been transferred."

9. Mr. Bhawla, on petitioner's instructions submitted that the

petitioner is ready to forego his seniority, in terms of Rule 29(10)

of the Rules of 1971.

(3 of 3) [CW-3895/2021]

10. In considered opinion of this Court, what has been submitted

by learned counsel for the respondent is legally correct and the

petitioner cannot change his Division as a matter of right.

11. Having regard to petitioner's ailment and the fact that he is

getting treatment in Jaipur and also considering that in such a

stage a person would like to live around his friends and family,

who can give him medical attendance and moral support, this

Court feels that it would be in the interest of the petitioner if his