Smt. Prem Salvi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1165 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 643/2022 Smt. Prem Salvi W/o Sh. Surya Prakash Salvi, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 5, Arihant Nagar, Kalka Mata Road, Pahada, District Udaipur (Raj) Presently Posted At Teacher Grade-II (Hindi), Govt. Upper Primary School Pahada, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. District Education Officer, Secondary Education Department (Headquarter) Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education Department, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Choudhary (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy. G.C. (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 25/01/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 20.12.2021 (Annex.9), whereby, the

representation made by the petitioner seeking transfer at the

place desired by her, has been rejected.

The petitioner was subjected to transfer by order dated

31.8.2021, after her name appeared in the list of Teachers under

Rule 3B of the Rules. When the vacant positions were indicated,

they were indicated at Mawli and Bhindar only. The petitioner

choose one of the vacant positions, where she was transferred as

indicated hereinbefore.

Whereafter, the petitioner made representation inter alia

indicating that the post in nearby schools were lying vacant in

(2 of 3) [CW-643/2022]

Block Girwa and as such, she may be posted at one of the such

places. When the prayer was not considered, the petitioner filed

SBCWP No.12276/2021, which came to be decided by order

6.9.2021, requiring the respondents to decide the representation

to be made by the petitioner.

Pursuant to the order dated 6.9.2021, the petitioner made

representation (Annex.8), requiring posting at Sundarwas. The

respondents passed order Annex.9 inter alia indicating that the

interest of the students was supreme, the teachers are required to

be distributed over the entire district keeping in view the ratio of

number of students and the posts at distant places cannot be kept

vacant and consequently, rejected the representation made by the

petitioner.

Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement

submissions that while disclosing posts vide Annex.3, the

respondents deliberately didn't disclose the vacant positions at

block Girwa, from where the petitioner was transferred and that

despite the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the

order passed by this Court, on wholly non existent reasons, the

representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the respondents based on the reply to

the writ petition, relied on various judgments and made

submissions that the order passed by the respondents does not

call for any interference.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The petitioner was subjected to procedure under Rule 3B of

the Rules and was called for counselling, wherein, particular

(3 of 3) [CW-643/2022]

schools were disclosed. The petitioner selected one of the schools,

where she was accorded posting. Submission has been made that

the schools, which were having vacant positions within the block

from where the petitioner was transferred, were not deliberately

disclosed.

The said submission, on face of it, cannot be accepted as it is

for the respondents to decide as to out of various vacant positions

within the district and/or the area where the petitioner could be

transferred, which posts were required to be filled up on priority

basis. The petitioner cannot seek the respondents to fill all the

posts at a particular block and keep posts in other blocks vacant.

In view thereof, the submission made that the schools at block

Girwa were deliberately not disclosed, cannot be accepted.

After the representation made by the petitioner, the

respondents have passed the order dated 20.12.2021 inter alia

giving out the reasons, as noticed hereinbefore, that it is

prerogative of the respondents to fill up the vacant posts at a

particular block and it is not necessary that the place where the

petitioner desires, need to be filled up. The determination made

by the respondents cannot be faulted.

In view of the above, no case for interference in the present

writ petition is made out. The petition has no substance. The same

is, therefore, dismissed.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 17-Sumit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)