Ramsharan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 10.7.2017, whereby, the petitioner has been accorded posting pursuant to the change of set up.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal on 23.3.2018, the appeal was decided ex-parte on 26.3.2018 leaving it open for the petitioners to file a representation with the respondents and the respondents were directed to decide the representation by way of speaking order.

Whereafter, it appears that the petitioner filed a representation on 9.4.2018 indicating the fact that as the petitioner has been accorded appointment on compassionate basis, he cannot be transferred. Further submissions were made pertaining to personal difficulties and the fact that certain posts lying vacant within the same block.

It appears that the representation was not decided by the respondents and petitioner also did not care for getting it decided and ultimately on 7.6.2019, the petitioner claims to have sent another representation (Annex.4) seeking decision on his pending representation. Pursuant thereto, on 24.7.2019, the representation made by the petitioner was rejected and petitioner was relieved on 29.7.2019.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis, the petitioner could not have been transferred to a school, which is situated 225 kms away from the present place of posting.

Further submissions have been made in the representation that the petitioner indicated 10 posts which were lying vacant in various schools, however, the said aspect has wrongly been dealt with by the respondents while deciding the representation and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appropriate posting to the petitioner.

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

From a perusal of the record, it appears that the initial order was passed on 10.7.2017 transferring the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal was filed by the petitioner, which came to be decided leaving it open for the petitioner to file representation, which representation has been decided with delay by the respondents on 24.7.2019.

A look at the representation made by the petitioner indicates that the plea raised pertains to the compassionate appointment, personal difficulties and the fact that certain posts are lying vacant. So far as the plea raised regarding compassionate appointment is concerned, merely because the petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis, cannot be a reason for the petitioner to continue to work at the same place or block for all times to come. So far as the personal difficulties as indicated by the petitioner are concerned, the same were already considered by the respondents and so far as the plea regarding vacant positions is concerned, the petitioner cannot be posted to a place of his choice, it is upto the respondents to decide as to which vacant position they want to fill, which right of the respondents cannot be questioned.

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