Premlata Pareek vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4766 Raj

[2023/RJJD/015659]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6201/2023

Premlata Pareek D/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Joshi, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 43, Kanhaiya Nagar, Khasra No. 123, Shikargarh, Jodhpur (Raj.) 342011.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education, Samta Nagar, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Joint Director (Personal), Secondary Education, Samta Nagarg, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Falgun Buch
                                     Mr. Gopalkrishan Chhangani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

17/05/2023

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is

due to superannuate in September, 2024 and has got less than

two years. He, therefore, submits that posting of the petitioner

may be considered in light of the judgment rendered by this Court

in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.1430/1999 "Pushpa Mehta

Vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors."

decided on 16.12.1999.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

would be satisfied, if an appropriate direction is issued to the

[2023/RJJD/015659] (2 of 2) [CW-6201/2023]

respondents to consider petitioner's representation to be posted at

a nearby place, in accordance with law, where concerned post is

lying vacant.

The present writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the

direction to the petitioner to address a fresh representation before

the competent authority pointing out vacant posts within a period

of two weeks alongwith photostat copy of the earlier

representation and certified copy of the order instant.

In case, such representation is filed by the petitioner, the

competent authority shall decide the same, in accordance with

law, preferably within a period of six weeks from the receipt

thereof.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner's grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

The order has been passed based on the submissions made

in the petition, the respondents would be free to examine the

veracity of the submissions made in the petition and only in case,

the averments made therein are found to be correct, the petitioner

would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 32-/Vivek/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)