Rajasthan High Court
Priyanka Kumari D/O Rajendra Prasad vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 January, 2024
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2024:RJ-JP:285-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1682/2019
IN
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6531/2019
Priyanka Kumari D/o Rajendra Prasad, aged about 23 Years,
Resident Of Nangal Khoriya, Tehsil-Behror, District-Alwar, Rajasthan
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Deputy Secretary Elementary
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director Elementary Education, Bikaner
3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar
4. District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Alwar.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, Additional Advocate
General
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Judgment
03/01/2024
1. This appeal directed against order dated 24.09.2019 passed by
the learned Single Judge is mainly on the submission that once the
candidate higher in order of merit, who was posted at Alwar did not
join and the post fell vacant, the merit list was required to be
reshuffled and the appellant ought to be considered in the changed
circumstances on the basis of her merit for re-posting at her place of
preference at Alwar. In support of his submission, learned counsel for
the appellant has relied upon the case of one Bindu Yadav, who had
filed a petition seeking similar relief. Reliance has also been placed on
[2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019]
judgments of this Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan & Others
Vs. Poonam Sharma (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019 and other
connected matters decided on 29.08.2019) and Pooja Yadav Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Others (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.934/2023,
decided on 13.12.2023).
2. Indisputably, when initially the merit list was drawn, the
appellant was given posting at Udaipur taking into consideration her
merit and preference. Moreover, at the initial stage of drawal of merit
list and giving appointment at place according to merit and
preference, none of the candidates lower in order of merit than the
appellant were posted at Alwar.
3. It appears that subsequently number of vacancies including
those at Alwar were not filled up on account of non-joining. At this
stage, the appellant raised a claim that the list should now be
reshuffled and she should be considered for posting at Alwar
according to her preference and those in the reserve list who are
lower in order of merit should not be considered for posting on the
vacant post at Alwar.
4. Learned Single Judge rejected the contention while holding that
The Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1971') do not permit such
operation of the list, once the merit list has been exhausted and an
occasion arose for operating reserve list as that will create an
administrative chaos.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the
case of Bindu Yadav also related to claim of place of posting and
appointment does not merit acceptance as that was not decided on
merits. It appears that initially an interim order was passed and
[2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019]
thereafter she was given posting. The order passed by the Learned
Single Judge in the case of Bindu Yadav only records that the
respondent-State has given her posting.
6. The other two decisions in the case of Pooja Yadav Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Others (supra) and State of Rajasthan & Others Vs.
Poonam Sharma (supra) are completely distinguishable on facts. None
of them deal with the contingency, which has been raised in the
present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the
Learned Single Judge while rejecting the claim has relied upon Rule
28 (2) of the Rules of 1971, whereas, the said Rule is not applicable
as the appointments were made under the Service Rules applicable to
Panchayat Services. On such submission made, we enquired from
learned counsel for appellant as to whether there is any other rule
applicable in appellant's case which supports her claim that when the
vacancies are not filled up due to the non-joining of the candidates,
the same procedure is required to be followed. However, no specific
rule was brought to our notice.
Reliance on Para 10.3 of the Advertisement No.01/2016 dated
06.07.2016 under which the appellant was appointed, only deals with
the drawal of the merit list. It does not expressly or even by
implication suggest that where vacancies are not filled up due to non-
joining, the entire exercise of redrawal of merit list and reshuffling of
the candidates on the basis of their merit and preference is to be
undertaken. Learned Single Judge has correctly held that if this is
allowed as a matter of right, there will be administrative chaos as it
will become an unending process and every time the merit list will
have to be re-drawn. We also find that present is not a case where the
appellant is seeking employment. It is only a matter relating to place
[2024:RJ-JP:285-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1682/2019]
of posting, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ
Diksha/Yogesh/49
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
