HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writs No. 5574/2018

1.

Ranbeer Singh Son Of Shri Tejpal Singh, Aged About 49

Years, Resident Of Village Nawta, Post Pacheri Chhoti Via

Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

2.

Ramkishore Saini Son Of Shri Mungaram Saini, Aged

About 52 Years, Resident Of Chobdaron Ki Dhani,

Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

3.

Kalpna Daughter Of Shri Jai Lal Singh, Wife Of Shri

Rajesh Kumar, Resident Of Village Post Bakra, District

Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Dy. Secretary

(Administration), Secondary Education, Govt. Secretariat,

Jaipur (Raj.)

2.

Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

3.

Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)

4.

District Education Officer, Secondary Education-I,

Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

5.

District Education Officer, Elementary Education,

Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Suresh Kumar

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

Order

15/03/2018

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application

stands resolved in view of the order dated 3^rd February, 2017,

(2 of 4)

[CW-5574/2018]

wherein the writ application was disposed off relying upon the

opinion in the case of Begraj Versus State and Ors.

It is further contended that, at this stage, the petitioners

would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to

consider and decide the case of the petitioners within a time

frame, in terms of the order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar Sharma

Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 1925/2017 and

Begraj (supra), holding thus;

“After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners and

narrated above, it can be redressed, if representation is given by

the petitioners within ten days from today and exercise is

thereupon undertaken by the department in the following manner

for which their exist agreement between the parties:

(1) The petitioners would make a representation to the

respondents raising their grievances against the order of

posting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge of

the posting. The representation aforesaid would be

submitted within a period of ten days from today along

with certified copy of this order. The respondent

department i.e. Secondary as well as Elementary Education

would immediately notify the vacant posts in different

schools and out of which, in which school they are in need

of a Teacher. If a vacant post exists in the school, but

looking to the strength of the students, the Teacher may

not be required then while notifying the vacant post in the

school, it would be made clear by the department that

against any post or posts, they do not need additional

hands. It is agreed that if the department finds that

additional hands are not required in a particular school or

against a post, then such posts would not be illed by

transfer for a period of three months.

(2) The Teachers of Level II posted against the post of

Level-I would be transferred back to their post

immediately after getting the new recruitees or on

availability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercise

would be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer of

Teachers Gr.III appointed on Level-I but transferred

against the post of Level-II, if any.

(3) The department would post the Teacher against the

post meant for specialised subject if their recruitment

was in a particular subject or they are teaching the

subject for years together. The Teacher of subject would

(3 of 4)

[CW-5574/2018]

be transferred to a post of the said subject only so that

students may not suffer.

(4) While undertaking the exercise, the department may

take into consideration the guidelines issued on 8th May,

2016 and 9th May, 2016. Whil