Rajasthan High Court Orders Review of Employee Postings After Anupgarh District Formation

Jodhpur: The High Court of Rajasthan has directed the Director of Secondary Education to consider representations from petitioners regarding their preferred district of posting following the creation of the new Anupgarh district. Justice DineshMehta , presiding at the Jodhpur Bench, ordered that the petitioners be given an opportunity to submit their options within one month.

The case, RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (CW / 19152 / 2024) , was brought by petitioners who were initially appointed in District Sriganganagar. Due to the recent administrative reorganization and the formation of District Anupgarh, the geographical area of their postings now falls under the newly created district. The petitioners expressed a desire to continue their service in District Sriganganagar.

Petitioners' Grievance

The core contention of the petitioners was that they were not provided with an opportunity to choose their preferred district of posting after the territorial changes. They argued that similar employees had been given such an option by the Director, Secondary Education.

The judgment notes the petitioners' claim: "It is the contention of the petitioners that opportunity to fill option forms for changing preferred district have been given to similar employees by the Director, Secondary Education, however, no such opportunity has been given to the petitioners, who want to remain in District Sriganganagar, though their area of posting after creation of District Anupgarh falls under Sanchore."

Court's Directive for Expeditious Redressal

Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court issued specific directions to ensure the petitioners' grievances are addressed promptly:

1. The petitioners are to file a formal representation before the Director, Secondary Education. This representation must be accompanied by a certified copy of the court's order and relevant documents, including the notification establishing District Anupgarh.
2. Upon receiving the representation, the Director, Secondary Education is mandated to "consider petitioners’ representation in accordance with law and call for option from the petitioners within a period of one month from today."

Clarification on Judicial Intent

Justice Mehta made it clear that the directive for the Director to decide on the representation should not be misinterpreted as an instruction to rule in any specific way. The judgment states:

"It is made clear that aforesaid direction to decide the representation has been issued only with a view to ensure expeditious redressal of petitioners’ grievance. The same may not be construed to be an order to decide the representation in a particular manner."

This emphasizes that the decision-making authority rests with the Director, who must act based on legal provisions and the merits of the representations.

Implications of the Order

The High Court's order underscores the importance of addressing employee concerns arising from administrative reorganizations, such as the creation of new districts. By directing the authorities to formally consider the petitioners' preferences and call for options, the court aims to ensure fairness and timely resolution of service-related issues. The one-month deadline set for the Director highlights the urgency of the matter.