HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19420/2025 Ashok Kumar Sagarwansi S/o Kanhaiya Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 221, Near Mali Samaj Hostel, Vaidnath Vasahat Colony, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. The Principle, Government Senior Secondary School Undra, Sirohi, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Shah.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

Order

09/12/2025

1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter has been heard for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 29.05.2025 (Annex.9) rejecting the representation of the petitioner.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Geography, English and Hindi subjects and the petitioner opted to Geography in pursuance of his option. He was given appointment to the post of Lecturer in the counselling by posting at Kotra, Udaipur.

4. His grievance is that some of the vacant posts of Geography in Sirohi District were not made part of the counselling done for posting of Geographical Lecturer. The same was challenged by petitioner of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9345/2025. The said writ petition was disposed of staying the operation of the order of posting of Lecturer for the post of Geography at Kotra, Udaipur and directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in terms of Poonma Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8749/2025, decided on 28.04.2025.

5. In the meanwhile, the petitioner, without waiting for outcome of his representation, decided to join in Hindi and he was posted at Undra, Pindwara, District Sirohi. Subsequently, by order dated 29.05.2025 (Annex.9), the representation of the petitioner was rejected holding that he has no right to insist that he should be allowed to work at a particular place as it is the choice of the employer. Assailing the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. As seen, this Court finds that there is no challenge to the rejection of the representation.

7. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that certain vacant posts which were available for inclusion in the counselling which was conducted for posting were not notified in the earlier counselling. Had those vacant posts were notified in the counselling, the petitioner would have better choice for posting as he was in the merit list. As the vacant posts were not notified, as such, he filed the present writ petition.

8. Once an order of stay is ordered until the representation is considered, the petitioner, instead of waiting till the representation is considered, had opted to join in Hindi subject. Hence, he has foregone his right of joining in Geography until and unless such a joining was subject to result of any writ petition or otherwise if any Rule of migration permits him.

9. Admittedly, in the present case, the joining of the petitioner was not made subject to any order of the Court. Once, the petitioner opted for joining in Hindi subject, the petitioner forego his right of consideration in the Geography subject. Even on the direction of the Court also, the petitioner cannot now shift his choice to join in the Geography subject unless the Rule itself permits him for such a migration.

10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present writ petition directing that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for Geography subject post in the vacancies which were not notified in the earlier counselling by way of fresh re- counselling for all, if he is found eligible and meritorious. If the Rule does not permit such migration, there is no need to consider the case of the petitioner in Geography subject.

11. With the abov