Indra Vikram Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10280 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12957/2019

Indra Vikram Singh S/o Shri Chhatar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of At Present Promoted On The Post Of Senior Teacher And Given Presence In The Office Of District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Secondary Education Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Dy. Secretary To The Government, Secondary Education (Group-2) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. The Director (Seconday Education), Education Department, Jodhpur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. C.P. Trivedi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sarwan Kumar for
                                Mr. Hemant Choudhary, G.C.


             HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
                                     Order

05/08/2022

     The   present    writ     petition      has     been        filed    against   the

impugned order dated 19.08.2019 whereby the petitioner was

directed to be posted with the Elementary Education Department.

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed as Teacher Grade-III with the Education Department.

Vide order dated 26.09.2013, he was sent on deputation as PFT

Manager/Coordinator to Rajasthan Gramin Aajivika Vikas Parishad

(hereinafter referred to as 'Council'). The said order of deputation

strictly mentioned that the deputation can be cancelled at any

(2 of 6) [CW-12957/2019]

stage and delinquent would be required to join back his parent

department with immediate effect. During the time when the

petitioner was working on deputation with the Council, he was

promoted as Teacher Grade-II vide order dated 03.12.2016 by his

parent department. As the petitioner was working on deputation

with the Council, he moved an application on 12.12.2016 to his

parent department requesting for grant of proforma promotion.

The same was not allowed and ultimately, he was relieved from

his deputed department i.e. Council on 29.05.2019. After being

relieved, the petitioner approached his parent department and

vide order dated 19.08.2019, a direction was issued by the

Competent Authority of the Secondary Education Department to

the District Education Officer of the Elementary Education

Department to provide an appropriate posting to the petitioner.

Against the said order dated 19.08.2019, the present petition has

been preferred.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that as he had been promoted as Teacher Grade-II vide order

dated 03.12.2016, he could not have been directed to be posted

with the Elementary Education Department. Learned counsel

submitted that he ought to have been posted with the Secondary

Education Department and the order impugned is bad in the eyes

of law. Learned counsel submitted that as soon as the order of

promotion dated 03.12.2016 was issued, he applied for proforma

promotion on 12.12.2016 and the same ought to have been

accepted by the respondent-parent department. Learned counsel

submitted that similarly situated employees were granted the

proforma promotion by the Department and for the same, he

(3 of 6) [CW-12957/2019]

relied upon an office order dated 20.12.2016 whereby, the

proforma promotion was granted to other employees (Annex.-5).

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that

after the promotion order being passed, he even applied to the

Council for being relieved but he was not relieved and to

substantiate his submission, learned counsel relied upon the

document dated 25.11.2016 whereby a communication was sent

by the council to the Secondary Education Department for further

instructions.

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon

the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Keshar Singh

Rajpurohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.7490/2017 decided on 05.03.2018.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the present one is a clear case of defiance of the orders of the

Department by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the

consent for deputation was granted by the parent department in

the year 2013 which ended in the year 2015 and thereafter, there

was no cause for the petitioner not to join back the parent

department. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner

did not ever wish to join back his parent department and

therefore, this was a clear case of forgoing of the promotion in

terms of the promotion order. Learned counsel submitted that the

petitioner was relieved way back by the deputed department

(Council) but against the order of relieving, the petitioner

preferred a writ petition before this Court and an interim order

was passed in his favour initially in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.7690/2016 and further in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.8209/2019. It is only after the dismissal of his writ petition

(4 of 6) [CW-12957/2019]

No.8209/2019 on 14.08.2019 that he came back to join the

parent department. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner

never ever applied or requested to be relieved from his place of

deputation to enable him to join his parent department. Rather it

is a case where the petitioner tried his very best to remain at his

place of deputation and therefore, it was a clear case of breach of

the condition of order of promotion whereby he was directed to

join last by 31.12.2016. As the petitioner did not join by

31.12.2016, the order of promotion ipso facto stood cancelled and

it would be deemed that the petitioner had forgone his promotion.

Therefore, the order dated 19.08.2019 being totally in terms of

law deserves to be upheld.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

In the year 2013, the petitioner was sent on deputation with

the Council and the consent by the parent department for the

same was given in the year 2013. A perusal of the order dated

14.08.2019 passed in writ petition No.8209/2019 preferred by the

petitioner makes it clear that at the first instance when in the year

2016, the deputation of the petitioner was sought to be cancelled

by the Council, he challenged the same and an interim order was

granted in his favour, by virtue of which, he remained on

deputation with the Council. Further again when vide order dated

29.05.2019, the deputation of the petitioner was terminated and

he was repatriated to his parent Department, he preferred a writ

petition against the same being the writ petition No.8209/2019.

The said writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 14.08.2019.

Meaning thereby, it was not the Council who was inclined to

continue the deputation of the petitioner but it was the petitioner

(5 of 6) [CW-12957/2019]

himself who wanted to remain on his deputed post without

consent of his parent department.

The Court reached to a specific finding in the order dated

14.08.2019 that the consent by the parent department was never

extended after the year 2015 and the petitioner was under an

obligation to join his parent department after that.

Moresoever, there is not a single document on record to

suggest that the Council ever recommended to the parent

department for grant of the proforma promotion to him. Rather

the Council has specifically stated that it was only because of the

interim order that the petitioner is being continued with the

Council.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that

despite his application, he was not relieved cannot be held to be

tenable as it is clear on record that the Council could not have

relieved him because there were interim orders operating in his

favour. Had the petitioner any intention to join his parent

department, he could have very well withdrawn the writ petition

wherein the interim orders had been passed in his favour. The

petitioner, on the one hand obtained interim orders to continue

with the Council and on the other hand very cursorily requested

the Council to relieve him. The said request cannot be termed to

be anything more than an eyewash.

In view of the above observations, it is clear that the

petitioner had no intent ever to join his parent department, rather

he wanted to remain clinged to his post of deputation. Therefore,

it cannot be concluded that the petitioner was restrained or was

unable because of any valid reason to join his promotional post

after the order of promotion being passed. Viewed from any angle,

(6 of 6) [CW-12957/2019]

it is a clear case of breach of conditions of order of promotion

whereby the petitioner was required to join his place of posting on

being promoted lastly by 31.12.2016. The petitioner having not

joined till 31.12.2016, the promotion ipso facto stood cancelled

and the same would be deemed to be forgone by the petitioner.

So far as the judgment of Keshar Singh Rajpurohit (supra)

relied upon by the petitioner is concerned, the same would not

apply to the present case as Keshar Singh Rajpurohit was a

case wherein it was specifically proved on record that the

petitioner therein was very much inclined to join back his parent

department. In that case, the petitioner continuously requested to

be relieved and it was the deputed department which did not

relieve him from his place of deputation and therefore, the

petitioner therein was unable to join his promotional posting with

his parent department. In those circumstances, the Court granted

indulgence and held that the petitioner therein would be entitled

to proforma promotion. The present case being totally contrary to

the facts of Keshar Singh Rajpurohit's case (supra) cannot be

governed by the ratio as laid down in the said judgment.

In view of the above observations, the present writ petition

is dismissed being devoid of merit.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J Ashutosh-Abhishek-95(S)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)