HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9132/2019

Kamal Lal Meghwal S/o Mangi Lal Meghwal, Aged About 44

Years, R/o Village Bhopa Sagar Post Aninda Tehsil Vallabhnagar,

District Udaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

Additional Secretary, Department Of Education,

Secretariat, Jaipur.

3.

Director Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4.

Director Elementary Education, Bikaner.

5.

District Education Officer, Secondary, Udaipur.

6.

Chief Block Education Officer, Lasadiya District Udaipur.

7.

Zila Parishad, Udaipur, Through Its Chief Executive

Officer, Udaipur.

8.

Panchayat Elementary Education Officer, Govt. Sr. Sec.

School, Dholiya District Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Pritam Joshi for Mr. S.K. Verma.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

15/12/2022

The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for

quashing of the Absorption/Transfer order dated 22.06.2019

whereby, the petitioner had been transferred.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that the

controversy involved in the present matters has been decided

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9282/2019; Babu Lal Puniya v.

(2 of 3)

[CW-9132/2019]

State of Rajasthan & Ors. In Babu Lal Puniya case (supra),

it had been held as under:

“From the above operational guidelines, it is

apparent that it is only the DEO (Hqrs),Secondary

Education, who has the jurisdiction to pass the

orders for transfer of the petitioners from Primary

Education to Secondary Education and accord

postings being their appointing authority and,

therefore, entire petition based on the submission

regarding lack of jurisdiction, has no substance.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the

petitioners are dismissed leaving it open for them to

approach the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate

Tribunal, in case they have any grievance qua the

issues other the authority of the DEO (Hqrs),

Secondary Education.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not refute the

above position but he make a specific submission that the

compliance of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 has not been

made in the present matter and the respondents be directed to

make the compliance of the same.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

judgment passed in

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

16671/2015:Surendra Kumar Bhatt & Ors. v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.

In Surendra Kumar Bhatt’s case (supra), the following

observation had been made by the Court:

“Accordingly, while not interfering in the

impugned order for the reasons given above,

the writ petitions are disposed of with the

direction to the respondents to look into the

seniority of all teachers, so transferred. If any

senior teacher is left out and at the same time,

(3 of 3)

[CW-9132/2019]

junior teacher has been transferred, then they

are directed to correct the order within a period

of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy

of this order.

It is made clear that compliance of the

directions given by this Court would be made in

strict terms and while revising the list, if so

required. It would be in strict adherence to the

provisions of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971 and

in future also, similar exercise would not

betaken in violation of the said rule, otherwise

the Department is directed to fix the

responsibility of the officer concerned so that

litigation may not come on account of violation

of Rule 6D of the Rules of 1971”.

In view of the ratio as laid down in Babu Lal Puniya’s

case(supra), while making the interim orders passed in the writ

petition absolute, the present writ petition is disposed of.

The respondents would be at liberty to pass fresh transfer

orders in light of the subsequent judgments. It is made clear

that the adherence to