Ajay Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The District Education Officer (Head Quarter), Secondary Education, Jodhpur was directed to remain present. He is present in the Court.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 23.12.2018 (Annex.4), whereby the petitioners have been subjected to provisions of Rule 6D of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 ('the Rules') and have been accorded posting based on the counseling conducted.

The petitioners, who were appointed as Teacher Gr.-III (Level-II) under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1994 ('the Rules of 1994'), were subjected to provisions of Rule 6D and called for counseling by order dated 21.12.2018 (Annex.2) and based on the counseling, they were accorded the orders of posting.

The grievance raised by the petitioners pertain to the subsequent action which was taken by the respondents, wherein, the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), issued list of another 30 vacant posts and based on such vacant positions, postings were accorded to the persons, who are claimed to be similarly situated. It is submitted that the positions, which have been indicated for postings after the petitioners were granted postings, are all within the urban area and that deliberately the said positions have not been disclosed at the time when the counseling of the petitioners took place, resulting in, they have been deprived of seeking posting in urban area.

On notice being issued, the respondents have filed their response. It is submitted that the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the provisions of Circular dated 14.09.2018 (Annex.2), wherein it is specifically provided that the vacancies would be determined in the manner that first of all, vacant positions in the Secondary schools would be determined and thereafter, if the number of teachers are more than the said vacancies, they may be accorded postings in the urban areas' Primary schools on the vacant positions.

Further submissions have been made that no dispute has been raised by the petitioner regarding any pick and choose violating the seniority and/or any other criteria, whereby the petitioners have been subjected to the posting in the Secondary set up and others have been accorded the postings in Elementary set up and therefore, the issue raised in the writ petitions has no substance.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to indicate any basis for selecting the petitioners for being sent to Secondary set up and for sending the other teachers to Elementary set up, which positions are within the urban area and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside.

Learned Government counsel reiterated the submissions as noticed.

An additional submission was also made by learned counsel for the petitioner that after passing of the order of petitioners' positing, qua seven persons the order has been cancelled on 07.01.2019, which also indicates the arbitrariness on part of the respondents. The order in this regard has been placed as Annex.-8 by way of additional affidavit.

Learned Government counsel with reference to the said order submitted that as the seven candidates, whose orders have been cancelled by order dated 07.01.2019, were not eligible as their services had not been confirmed based on the communication dated 25.12.2018 received from the District Education Officer, Primary Education.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The stipulation for the change of set up pursuant to provision of Rule 6D of the Rules has been prescribed in the circular dated 14.09.2018, wherein inter-alia for subject maths and science, the vacancies have been ordered to be determined as under :-

"2- रिक्तियों के निर्धारण

(i) सामाजिक विज्ञान/हिन्दी/तृतीय भाषा तथा गणित/विज्ञान

(A) माध्यमिक षिक्षा के सम्बन्धित विषय के समस्त रिक्त पद

(B) यदि बिन्दु संख्या- 2 (i)(A) के पष्चात् भी नवचयनित षिक्षकों की संख्या काउंसलिंग के लिए निर्धारित रिक्त पदों की संख्या से अधिक है तो प्रारम्भिक षिक्षा के शहरी क्षेत्र के विद्यालयों के सम्बन्धित विषय के रिक्त पद (कक्षा 6 से 8 के नामांकन के घटते क्रम में"

Admittedly, as per the above stipulation made in the circular, the respondents have determined the vacant posts in Secondary set up and thereafter in the Primary schools in urban areas. This is not in dispute that all the persons, who have been included in the order dated 21.12.2018 (Annex.2), have been sent to the Secondary set up. Further the said persons, who have been subjected for being sent to the Secondary set up schools are having their date of joining prior to the persons, who have been subjected to the subsequent order wherein they have been sent to Primary school situated in urban areas. Once, the respondents have made a criteria before hand and have followed the same meticulously qua which no objection has been raised in the present writ petition, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be faulted.

Merely because on account of the policy adopted by the respondents, wherein the senior persons are being sent to Secondary set up and comparative junior persons are being sent to Primary set up schools of the education department and the said schools are situated in urban area, neither the policy nor the action of the respondents in this regard can be said to be arbitrary and/or malafide, so as to require interference by this Court.

So far as the cancellation of order of seven persons by order dated 07.01.2019 is concerned, in view of the submissions made by learned Government counsel based on the communication dated 25.12.2018 pertaining to the eligibility of the said seven persons, the said action also cannot come to the aid of the petitioners in any manner.

In so far as, seven posts which have become vacant on account of passing of the order dated 07.01.2019 is concerned, the respondents may explore the possibility of offering the said positions to the teachers based on their seniority.

In view of above discussions, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed.