Full Judgment
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7259/2014 Vinod Kumar versus State & Anr.Final Order dated 15.10.2014 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: ORDER
:: S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7259/2014 Vinod Kumar versus State & Anr.Date of Order ::::: 15th October, 2014.
PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.
JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.V.K.Bhadu, for the petitioner.
<<>> BY THE COURT: 1.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to decide the representations Annexure-3 dated 31.10.2012 and Annexure-4 dated 21.08.2014 filed by the petitioner regarding his posting.
The prayers are quoted below:- “It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:- A.
By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents no 2 may kindly be given direction to decide the representation and allot the posting place at Jodhpur Dist.B.Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7259/2014 Vinod Kumar versus State & Anr.Final Order dated 15.10.2014 2/4 the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.C.Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”
.
3.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.K.Bhadu submitted that the controveRs.involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of coordinate bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Monika Meel V/s the Dy.
Director, Secondary Education - SBCWP No.15668/2012 decided on 03.10.2012.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner's representations Annexure-3 dated 31.10.2012 and Annexure-4 dated 21.08.2014 to the respondent No.2 - the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur is pending since 31.10.2012 and 21.08.2014 and which have not been decided so far.
4.
This Court in the case of Monika Meel (supra) held as under:- “Short controveRs.involved in these writ petitions is regarding posting of the candidates selected and appointed on the post of Teacher Grade II.
Petitioners have been ignored for preference ignoring their merits despite asking for preference of postings.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the postings would be given to the candidates as per their merit and S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7259/2014 Vinod Kumar versus State & Anr.Final Order dated 15.10.2014 3/4 preference.
The exception would be in the case of disabled, divorcee, widow and single female.
Those four categories would be given preference in postings irrespective of their merit position however, if any, issue of preference in four categories mentioned above comes, preference would be as per merit amongst them.
In view of the submissions of the counsel for the respondents and ...(illegible).shown by the petitioneRs.these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents that postings of Teacher Gr.II should be given as per the preference given by the candidates subject to their merits, thereby meritorious candidates would be having better choice of postings in comparison to less meritorious candidates.
The exception of the aforesaid would be for disabled, divorcee, widows and single female.
However, in case of preference between these four categories, meritorious candidate would get preference in postings.
This order would not only apply to these petitions but would be followed for entire State.
This is to avoid any controveRs.of postings and litigations in that regard.
Thus, State Government is expected to regulate the postings as directed above.
With the aforesaid, the writ petitions and stay applications are allowed.
Sd/- (M.N.Bhandari).J.”
.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.7259/2014 Vinod Kumar versus State & Anr.Final Order dated 15.10.2014 4/4 5.
At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of in the same terMs.The respondent No.2 - Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur is therefore, directed to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in terms of aforesaid judgment within a period of four weeks from today.
No order as to costs.
A copy of this order be sent to the Respondent concerned forthwith.
(Dr.
VINEET KOTHARI).J.
//Mohan// 132