Ramchandra Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 15/10/2018 (Annex.6), whereby, the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents.

It is inter alia claimed in the writ petition that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr. I in the subject Geography; the petitioner could not qualify, however, the petitioner ultimately qualified under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 24/8/2018 the petitioner was accorded posting at District Dungarpur, whereas, the petitioner belongs to District Udaipur, wherein, it is claimed that the posts are still vacant.

The petitioner raised objections regarding his posting and sought appointment at District Udaipur and approached this Court by filing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14125/2018, which writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition.

The petitioner filed a detailed representation, however by order dated 15/10/2018, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents in rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not justified inasmuch as large number of posts were lying vacant at District Udaipur at the time when petitioner was accorded appointment and even when the representation made by the petitioner was rejected the positions were vacant and, therefore, the action of the respondents in according posting to the petitioner in District Dungarpur and, thereafter, rejecting the representation cannot be sustained.

Allegations have been made that the respondents have rejected the representation on account of petitioner having approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner in District Udaipur.

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

The respondents after perusing the representation made by the petitioner came to the following conclusion:

"याची के अभ्यावेदन का गहनता से अध्ययन व मनन किया गया तथा उपलब्ध अभिलेखों के आधार पर याची की मांग के विषय में स्पष्ट है कि याची का पदस्थापन काउसलिंग के द्वारा किया गया तथा याची को उस समय काउसंलिंग के लिये निर्धारित रिक्त पदों में से स्थान चयन करने का अवसर दिया गया संशोधित परिणाम में चयनित अभ्यर्थियों की काउंसलिंग बाद में की गयी और उन्हें उसी प्रकार काउंसलिंग के लिये निर्धारित पदों में से चयन का अवसर मिला। काउंसलिंग के लिये रिक्त पदों का निर्धारण विभाग की आवश्यकता एवं प्राथमिकता अनुसार किया जाता है, समयनुसार रिक्तियों की स्थिति समान नहीं हो सकती व्याख्याता का पद राज्य सेवा का पद है। अतः किसी भी व्याख्याता का पदस्थापन राज्य में किसी भी स्थान पर किया जा सकता है याची का अभ्यावेदन खारिज करते हुए निस्तारित किया जाता है। सभी संबंधित पक्षकार सूचित हों।"

The ground indicated for rejecting the petitioner's representation is that during the course of counselling the vacant positions are offered by the respondents based on the requirements and priority and merely on account of some positions being vacant at the time of appointment cannot be a reason for the petitioner to claim appointment on such vacant positions. The reason indicated by the respondents appears to be cogent and the allegation of malafide in rejecting the representation, apparently, has no basis.

However, the representation was rejected way back on 15/10/2018 and the petitioner after waiting for three months has now questioned the rejection of representation, which apparently indicates that despite joining pursuant to initial order of appointment at Dungarpur, the petitioner has been taking chances in case she can seek transfer from District Dungarpur to District Udaipur, for which no case has been made out in the writ petition.

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.