Ramesh Kumar Motsara vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5362 Raj

[2023/RJJD/017673]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6737/2023

1. Ramesh Kumar Motsara S/o Moolaram Motsara, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. B-92, Rk Puram Colony, Jaipur Road, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. Sandeep S/o Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/op.Near Jambheshwar Mandir, Gajjewala, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Naveen Suthar S/o Om Prakash Suthar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o.Behind City Kotwali, Khadgawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Rakesh Bishnoi S/o Mohan Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o.Vpo Gajjewala, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. Sunil Suthar S/o Rajuram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o.Behind Murli Manohar Temple, Sutharo Ka Mohalla, Bhinasar, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Cum Commissioner Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Commissioner And Joint Secretary-I, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Churu.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer.

6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Sawai Madhopur.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Saini through VC Mr. Hansraj NImbar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment / Order

[2023/RJJD/017673] (2 of 4) [CW-6737/2023]

26/05/2023

1. Petitioners have raised a grievance that they have not been

given posting at their home district, whereas less meritorious

persons have been given posting in their home district.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the persons

who have secured higher rank should be preferred in giving place

of posting, whereas the respondents have violated such principles.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits

that the controversy raised, in the instant writ application, stands

resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench

of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Meena v. State of Rajasthan

& Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2226 of 2014; holding

thus:

"Issue notice. Copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the State.

All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners working on the post of Teacher Grade- II, Teacher Grade-III and Headmasters, contending that their posting as per instructions of the Government ought to be made as far as possible in the district of their choice on the basis of their merit position. Petitioners have in this connection relied on Circular dated 11/09/2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government in its Department of School Education in respect of the Head Masters selected for appointment through Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another Circular dated 03/08/2012 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department in respect of Teachers Gr.II and Gr.III selected for appointment in Primary and Upper Primary Schools of the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar writ petition pertaining to Teacher Grade-

III was allowed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012 : Monika Meel Vs. The Dy.Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur vide order dated 3/10/2012 on the basis of statement made on behalf of the respondent-State that

[2023/RJJD/017673] (3 of 4) [CW-6737/2023]

posting in the district of choice would be given to the candidates as per their merit-cum-preference. However, it was also given out that in case of disabled, divorcee, widow and single female, preference will be given to the place of their choice irrespective of their merit position. If any conflict arises in regard to preference inter-se between them, preference would be given to the candidates belonging to any one of these four categories on the basis of his/her merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that while some of the candidates have been accommodated within the district of their choice/preference on the basis of merit but the petitioners have not been afforded similar treatment.

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the government is prepared to consider request of the petitioners as per instructions issued by it from time to time in regard to posting. If the instructions dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013 continues to be operative, the government upon petitioners approaching, would consider their request subject to their merit-cumpreference depending on the availability of vacancies in a given district. Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering the categorical instructions issued by the government dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013, all these writ petitions are disposed of requiring the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners on their application /representation now submitted for their posting as per their merit-cum-preference subject to availability of vacancies in the district of their choice and appropriate order with regard to their posting/fresh posting/transfer to such district, may be passed within two months from the date such application/representation is submitted before them."

4. It is further contended that for the present; the petitioners

would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to decide

the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, which

they are ready and willing to address, within two weeks

hereinafter.

[2023/RJJD/017673] (4 of 4) [CW-6737/2023]

5. In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writ

proceedings stand disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to

address a comprehensive representation to the respondents.

6. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid

period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide

the same by a reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of

opinion in the case of Smt. Anju Meena (supra), as expeditiously

as possible, however, in no case later than four weeks from the

date of receipt of the representation.

7. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the

writ petition stands disposed of.

8. The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

9. 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

petitioners would be entitled to the relief.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 89-SanjayS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)