Advocates:
['MUKESH RAJPUROHIT', '', 'UTTAM SINGH', 'DINESH SUTHAR', 'HEMANT CHOUDHARY']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12939/2021

Manish Trivedi S/o Shri Suraj Prakash Trivedi, Aged About 43

Years, Brahampuri Bhagi Pole, Chanpole, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Depart Of

Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,

Rajasthan.

2.

The Director, Department Of Secondary Education,

Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3.

The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Department

Of Secondary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4.

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Jodhpur,

Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Uttam Singh Rajpurohit for

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Vishal Jangid

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

20/09/2021

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the

controversy involved in the these writ petition is akin to one

decided by this Court in bunch of cases led by Prem Bai Meena Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.11136/2017

decided by Jaipur Bench on 24.07.2017.

2.

Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the respondents, is not in a

position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner point out that this Court in

the case of Prem Bai (supra) had directed the respondent –State

(2 of 2)

[CW-12939/2021]

not to relieve the concerned petitioners till their representation is

decided, but in the present case the petitioner has been relieved

though no one has joined at the petitioner’s place and new

circular/guidelines dated 24.08.2021 has been issued.

4.

The petitioner are directed to furnish a representation in light

of guidelines dated 24.08.2021 or any other applicable

guideline/circular before the concerned District Education Officer

within a period of one week, along with photo-stat copy of the

guideline/circular and certified copy of the order instant. The

petitioner may also point out any vacant post in her district and

judgment, which she wish to rely upon.

5.

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid

period, the competent authority of respondent shall consider and

decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible,

preferably within a period of two weeks.

6.

Until petitioner’s representation is decided, the petitioner

shall be permitted to discharge her duties at present place of

posing (before passing of the impugned orders).

7.

It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the

representation has been issued only with a view to ensure

expeditious redressal of petitioner’s grievance. The same may not

be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a

particular manner.

8.

The present writ petition as well as stay application stand

disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

230-Rahul/-