Baldev Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the rejection of his representation filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in Gena Ram Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.:8085/2019 & connected matters, decided on 21.6.2019 and order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the RCSAT, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

In the representation, the petitioner inter alia made a specific reference about incurable disease being suffered by his son and the inevitable circumstances, whereby, in case, the petitioner was subjected to set up change/transfer, the child would suffer.

The respondents passed the order dated 5.7.2019 (Annex.10) rejecting the representation made by the petitioner. While the other technical issues raised by the petitioner were dealt with and rejected, the plea regarding his son's illness though noticed, was not adverted to.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal').

The Tribunal by its order dated 23.7.2019 decided several similar appeals pending before it, committed the same mistake while dealing with the said aspect, did not deal with the specific issue raised by the petitioner regarding illness of his child.

The petitioner in the writ petition besides raising the said issue regarding non-consideration of important aspect, qua which, the representation was moved by the petitioner, raised the issue pertaining to not subjecting certain teachers to set up change.

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents explaining issues raised by the petitioner in not subjecting certain teachers to set up change / reviewing the same.

However, the aspect pertaining to the petitioner's son's illness has again not been adverted to and only insistence made is that as the petitioner is required to be subjected to set up change / transfer to secondary set up, the plea raised by the petitioner cannot be accepted.

During course of submissions reliance has been placed on the procedure being adopted by the respondents, whereby, only in case of certain illness of the teacher himself/herself, the relaxation has been provided.

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

So far as the issue of discrimination is concerned, in view of the material placed on record, no case is made out. However, the petitioner very specifically raised the issue about illness of his child and the fact that in case he was subjected to set up change / transfer, the child would suffer. The issue was not dealt with by the respondents while deciding the representation made by the petitioner and the Tribunal also failed to deal with the said aspect.

The Policy of the respondents in only considering circumstance of illness of the teacher only, cannot be permitted to result in harming the child / children of the teachers. In the present circumstances as indicated, in case the petitioner is transferred to a place which is about 70-100 km away from the place of present posting, the child who requires a constant medical attention and is suffering from Hemophilia would immensely suffer, which aspect could not have been ignored by the respondents while subjecting the petitioner to set up change / transfer.

The said aspect was required to be considered by the respondents even while according posting to the petitioner, even if the set up change / transfer to secondary set up was inevitable, however, taking quite an indifferent view of the circumstances, mechanical orders have been passed subjecting the petitioner to transfer. The said attitude of the respondents in the circumstances of the present case, cannot be approved. Consequently, the orders passed by the respondent - State as well as Tribunal, cannot be sustained.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders dated 5.7.2019 (Annex.10) and 23.7.2019 (Annex.14) passed by the Tribunal as well as the order of posting dated 10.7.2019 (Annex.12) are quashed and set aside.

The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner based on the observations made hereinbefore and pass appropriate order keeping in view the health condition of petitioner's son.

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of two weeks from today.