Kamal Lal Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14747 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2019

Kamal Lal Meghwal S/o Mangi Lal Meghwal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Bhopa Sagar Post Aninda Tehsil Vallabhnagar, District Udaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Secretary, Department Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. Director Elementary Education, Bikaner.

5. District Education Officer, Secondary, Udaipur.

6. Chief Block Education Officer, Lasadiya District Udaipur.

7. Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Through Its Chief Executive Officer, Udaipur.

8. Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.

School, Dholiya District Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi for Mr. S.K. Verma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

15/12/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing of the Absorption/Transfer order dated 22.06.2019 whereby, the petitioner had been transferred.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the controversy involved in the present matters has been decided in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9282/2019; Babu Lal Puniya v.

(2 of 3) [CW-9132/2019]

State of Rajasthan & Ors. In Babu Lal Puniya case (supra), it had been held as under:

"From the above operational guidelines, it is apparent that it is only the DEO (Hqrs),Secondary Education, who has the jurisdiction to pass the orders for transfer of the petitioners from Primary Education to Secondary Education and accord postings being their appointing authority and, therefore, entire petition based on the submission regarding lack of jurisdiction, has no substance.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed leaving it open for them to approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, in case they have any grievance qua the issues other the authority of the DEO (Hqrs), Secondary Education."

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not refute the

above position but he make a specific submission that the

compliance of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 has not been

made in the present matter and the respondents be directed to

make the compliance of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

16671/2015:Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.

In Surendra Kumar Bhatt's case (supra), the following

observation had been made by the Court:

"Accordingly, while not interfering in the impugned order for the reasons given above, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to look into the seniority of all teachers, so transferred. If any senior teacher is left out and at the same time,

(3 of 3) [CW-9132/2019]

junior teacher has been transferred, then they are directed to correct the order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

It is made clear that compliance of the directions given by this Court would be made in strict terms and while revising the list, if so required. It would be in strict adherence to the provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and in future also, similar exercise would not betaken in violation of the said rule, otherwise the Department is directed to fix the responsibility of the officer concerned so that litigation may not come on account of violation of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971".

In view of the ratio as laid down in Babu Lal Puniya's

case(supra), while making the interim orders passed in the writ

petition absolute, the present writ petition is disposed of.

The respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh transfer

orders in light of the subsequent judgments. It is made clear

that the adherence to the provisions of Rule 6C of the

Rajasthan Education State and Subordinate Services Rules,

2021 (akin to Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971) would be strictly

made as laid down in the case of Surendra Kumar Bhatt.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 190-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)