Mamta Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application stands resolved in view of the adjudication made

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being SBCWP No. 10232/2016: Smt. Rooplata Meena Vs. State of Raj.

& Ors.; wherein after considering the grievances of the petitioners therein, a consent order was made observing 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 representationto 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 filled by transfer for a period of three months.

(2) The Teachers of Level II posted against thepost 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 Teacheragainst 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 be transferred to a post of the said subject only so that students may not suffer.

(4) While undertaking the exercise, thedepartment may take into consideration the guidelines issued on 8 th May, 2016 and 9 th May, 2016. While

applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievances of the petitioners.

(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicatetheir choice of school other than it is notified by the respondents.

(6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would bedealt with by the department. The request can be accepted because in the case of mutual transfer, it

would not affect any one which includes even the department. The prayer for mutual transfer would be between the employees of same level of the

post and set up apart from subject, if any.

(7) If the petitioners have already joined the postin pursuance of the orders under challenge, then their joining would not be taken adverse for disposal

of the representation and carrying out the directions given.

(8) Apart from the issues referred above, if anyother issue exists to seek change of the place of transfer, the petitioners would be at liberty to make a

representation showing the ground for it like posting of husband and wife at one place, illness, disability, retirement in few months or any such similar

ground.

(9) It is agreed that the representation would beconsidered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order. The writ petitions

stand disposed off with the aforesaid period. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.â€​

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the present; the petitioners would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are

directed to consider and decide the case of the petitioners for posting against any vacant post in nearby area, in view of the observations made by this

Court in the case of Rooplata Meena (Supra).

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioners to address a comprehensive

representation to the State-respondents ventilating grievances raised herein.

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a

reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt

of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.