Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vinod vs The Rajasthan High Court ... on 4 April, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:18109-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18733/2023
Vinod S/o Shri Kalu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Burchan, Post Bagoria, Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342603
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Exam Cell Through Its
Secretary.
2. The Rajasthan High Court, Through Its Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Laxmi Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
04/04/2025
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred claiming the
following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that his
Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept
and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to issue
an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof
thereby:-
i. The respondents may kindly be directed to allot the
petitioner his preferred Institution/district which is
Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur instead of District-Balotra,
which had been preferred by the petitioner in accordance
to the order dated 05.08.2022 (Annex.2) and he has
cleared the merit in General stream despite being from
EWS.
ii. That the humble petitioner prayed to this Hon'ble
court to issue an appropriate order or direction to the
respondent in favour of the petitioner without any delay.
[2025:RJ-JD:18109-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-18733/2023]
iii. Any other order and directions which the Hon'ble
Court deemed just and proper may kindly be passed in
favor of petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
present controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this
Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.
Poonam Sharma (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.815/2019) and
other connected matters, decided on 29.08.2019. Relevant portion
whereof reads as follows:-
"14. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is
no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of
cadre or division, according to the preference sought from
candidates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is
a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the
fairness of the process of allocation.
15. The peculiar condition that the State finds itself in
today, is because it proceeded to make final allocations of
the divisions having regard to the available materials, i.e.
recommendations received at different times, from RPSC
and the vacancy position that was available at the time of
receipt of such recommendations. There is some merit in
the State's submission that posting orders of the selected
candidates could not have been withheld to await receipt of
recommendations to all the posts. Public interest of course,
dictated that the teachers recruited be assigned duties as
early as practically feasible. Yet, that did not mean that
final allocations had to be made at the stage of assigning
duties. No doubt, the cadre of Senior Teachers is
maintained division wise. Yet, the recruitment was by a
common process; the rules applicable were the same and
the procedure adopted too was the same. This meant that if
there were some delays in forwarding recommendations,
the allocations of concerned divisions had to be made
finally. Until the entire picture emerged with regard to
recommendation of candidates, the State could have well
[2025:RJ-JD:18109-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-18733/2023]
made provisional cadre allocations, which could have been
finalized, after all recommendations had been received. In
such latter event, the State would have been able to ensure
that MRC candidates had a choice to seek the division which
they wanted, given their relative merit ranking. In such an
event, by application of the rule indicated in Para 72 (iv) of
the judgment in Ramesh Ram (supra), MRC candidates
would have been provided with a choice of being treated as
those belonging to the general category, or being treated as
reserved category candidates.
16. In the light of the above discussion, the Court is of
opinion that the findings and conclusions recorded by the
Single Judge are reasonable. The following directions are
consequently issued:
(a) The State shall issue a circular/order within four
weeks, expressly stating that cadre allocations (to
different divisions) made are only provisional and that
such allocations would be made finally in a time
bound manner, to be clearly indicated in such an
order or circular;
(b) Await the receipt of all recommendations for 3
months and thereafter take up the process of
determination of cadre allocations, in accordance with
the rules and circulars applicable and complete such
cadre allocations within 6 months from today;
(c) The State is further directed that cadre allocations
made finally pursuant to the above directions, shall
not be treated as transfers, but instead as revised
initial postings of the concerned teachers.
(d) The circular issued pursuant to the above
directions shall also mention that it has been issued
pursuant to the present order.
17. The State's appeals therefore have to fail. They are
according dismissed, subject to the above directions."
3. In light of the aforementioned judgment rendered in Poonam
Sharma (supra), the present writ petition is allowed, in terms of
[2025:RJ-JD:18109-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-18733/2023]
the observations and directions contained in the said judgment.
4. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
56-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
