Motilal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1/1/2018 (Anex.P/11) passed by the respondent no.3, whereby, the representation made by the

petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by this Court has been rejected.

The petitioner, a Teacher Gr.III, was transferred on promotion as Teacher Gr.II by order dated 26/10/2017 and was posted at Government Senior

Secondary School, Jandwa, Ratangarh District Churu. The petitioner made representations on 3/11/2017 and 4/12/2017 seeking posting nearby Churu

indicating that posts were lying vacant. It was further indicated that similarly situated persons were transferred along with the petitioner, however,

considering their representations, orders were passed, however, the petitioner was not accorded the same treatment.

The petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.16367/2017, which was disposed of on 12/12/2017 permitting the petitioner to approach the respondents

with appropriate representation mentioning all the facts and raising his grievances and it was expected of the respondents to decide the representation

within a period of two weeks from the date representation was made.

Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a detailed representation inter alia indicating the issues as noticed hereinbefore. The respondents by order dated

1/1/2018 (Annex.P/11) simply noticed that as the petitioner has been accorded the posting based on the choice made by him during the course of

counselling, he was not entitled to be accorded posting as desired by him in the representation and consequently rejected the representation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation made by the petitioner, however, the

respondents without adverting to the submissions made in the representation, on obvious facts regarding participation of the petitioner in the

counselling, have rejected the representation, which is a non-speaking order and does not deal with the grievances raised by the petitioner.

Further submissions were made that still several posts are lying vacant where the petitioner can be conveniently posted and a list whereof has been

filed as Annex.P/12 and as such the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot seek appointment only at a place of his

choice. It was submitted that the petitioner based on the order of promotion has been given posting at a place where his services are required and he

cannot seek posting as per his choice/convenience and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, learned counsel fairly pointed

out that as the order of transfer of petitioner was stayed by this Court on 12/1/2018, the post where the petitioner was transferred has already been

filled and now the petitioner has to be posted somewhere else.

Learned counsel for the respondents also pointed out that four places within 25 km. of the place of present posting has been indicated to the learned

counsel for the petitioner from which a choice can be made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner responded by saying that petitioner himself has given out the vacant positions available in Annex.P/12, where he

can be conveniently posted.

In overall facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the post where the petitioner was transferred has already been filled and petitioner is required

to be posted at some other place, the respondents are directed to take into consideration the vacant positions indicated by the petitioner in Annex.P/12

and if posting at any of the said places is not otherwise inconvenient to the respondents, he may be posted at one of such places. However, if it is not

possible to post the petitioner at any of such places, he may be accorded posting as per the proposal given by learned Government Counsel. Needful

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

The above direction has been given in peculiar facts of the present case and cannot be adopted as a practice, as the petitioner cannot dictate the terms

as to where he wants the posting.

With the above directions, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.