[2026:RJ-JD:5826]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19908/2025 Shyam Sundar Sharma S/o Kailash Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Neem Ka Para Post Sindoli Tehsil And District Dausa Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

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

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

5. District Education Officer, Secondary Education Department, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Bhati.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, AGC.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

02/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on deputation by the selection process, even though the petitioner meets the merit criteria, on the ground that the petitioner, though absorbed into the non-TSP area, was not relieved in terms of the condition which enables the authorities to relieve him as and when the post which the petitioner was occupying in the TSP area is filled up.

2. The facts in the present case disclose that the petitioner was working in a TSP area and an option was given to opt as to whether he wanted to continue in the TSP area or the non-TSP area. Basing on the option, the petitioner was absorbed into the non-TSP area vide order dated 30.07.2023 (Annex.2). Subsequently, the respondents issued a notification inviting applications from teachers working in various schools for deputation by selection to work in Mahatma Gandhi English Medium Schools. The petitioner made an application and he was successful in the merit list; however, he was not given appointment for the reason that though he was absorbed in the non-TSP area, the respondents are entitled not to relieve the petitioner till the post in the TSP area is filled up.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that after absorption, the petitioner was relieved from the TSP area to the non-TSP area; however, such relieving orders were passed after issuance of the advertisement but before completion of the selection process.

4. As seen from the order of absorption, the absorption was conditional, meaning the petitioner continued to work in the TSP area till a new incumbent was supplemented by filling up the post which the petitioner was occupying. This means that the absorption was conditional and not an absolute one.

5. As submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, by the date of completion of the selection process, the petitioner had already been relieved from the TSP area on account of filling up of the post by another incumbent. As such, the absorption had become an absolute absorption by the date of completion of the selection process. Once absolute absorption is there, the petitioner cannot be denied appointment to the post for which he was deputed by the selection process by meeting the merit criteria. Therefore, the present writ petition is required to be allowed.

6. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to treat the candidature of the petitioner eligible for appointment on deputation by the selection process to the post for which the petitioner appeared. If he is found in the merit, he shall be appointed to the vacancy available, if any. If the vacancy does not exist, as and when a vacancy exists, his candidature should be considered.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J

31-pradeep/-