Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raj Rani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:10540) on 21 February, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:10540]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1124/2025
Raj Rani D/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No.
14, Purana Bazar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. The Joint Director (School Education), Udaipur Division,
Udaipur.
4. The District Education Officer (Headquarters), Chittorgarh
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
21/02/2025
1. Petitioner herein, serving as a Teacher, is before this Court
seeking quashing of an order dated 02.03.2023 (Annex.9), vide
which, the claim of the petitioner for placing her in Bikaner
Division if she forgo her seniority, was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that candidates
who were lower in merit than the petitioner were allotted the
Bikaner District, which is her first preference. Despite her seniority
and claiming that she would forgo her seniority if she would have
been allotted the Bikaner Division, her claim was rejected vide
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 10:04:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10540] (2 of 3) [CW-1124/2025]
impugned order dated 02.09.2023. Therefore, the impugned order
deserves to be quashed.
3. Firstly, the translated version of impugned order dated
02.09.2023, reads as under:
“SB Civil Petition No. 16913/2021 Rajrani vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. – In the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Jodhpur on 27.01.2023, the respondents were directed to consider the
petitioner’s representation and dispose of it through a reasoned order.
The petitioner has primarily stated in her representation that
she is a selected candidate with merit rank 152 in the Senior Teacher
(Various Subjects) Recruitment Examination 2018 for the Hindi
subject. According to the petitioner, instead of being allotted a posting
in her preferred region, she was posted far away in a remote district
(Udaipur district) about 650 km from her home, in Chittorgarh. The
petitioner has stated that if she is allotted a posting in her preferred
district, Bikaner, she would not claim any seniority. The petitioner has
requested her posting in the following schools: Govt. Sr. Sec. School,
7GB Vijay Nagar, R.S. School, Ghamdiya Suratgarh, R.S. School, 11
Joyanwali Vijay Nagar, R.S. School, Hizarasar Suratgarh, and R.S.
School, Sawalsar Suratgarh.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, has carefully
examined the petitioner’s representation in the context of the order
passed on 27.01.2023, along with the relevant departmental rules,
records, and policy considerations. Regarding the senior teacher
recruitment of 2018, the directions issued by the state government on
02.07.2020 for division allotment have been followed. As the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission did not send all the
recommendations at once, after receiving each batch of candidates’
recommendations, the available posts in the respective divisions were
filled based on the merit, category, and preferences as per the
guidelines issued by the state government.
The department received the recommendations in phases, rather
than all at once. Therefore, the process could not be delayed or
disrupted by waiting for all the recommendations, as it was necessary
to proceed with appointments in the interest of the students.
The petitioner, ranked 152 in the Senior Teacher Hindi subject
selection and belonging to the GENF category, was directed to
undergo document verification by the committee on 08.04.2021.
Following the verification, conditional and unclear recommendations
were sent on 19.11.2020, and the department ensured eligibility
verification at the department level. Upon confirmation, the petitioner
was allotted the Udaipur division based on the available vacancies
and departmental policies. Prior to receiving the petitioner’s
recommendation, first, second, and third division allotments had
already been made, and most posts had been filled. Based on the
preference indicated by the petitioner, the positions in her desired
divisions had already been filled.
As per the directions of the state government on 02.07.2020 and
departmental policies, the petitioner was allotted the Udaipur division.
It is clear that no candidates with a lower merit rank were allotted to(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 10:04:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:10540] (3 of 3) [CW-1124/2025]the Bikaner division during the division allotment process on
24.09.2021.
The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, in the case SB
Civil Petition No. 11311/2015, Shweta vs. Government, also held that
“The appointment can be claimed as a matter of right, but posting
cannot be claimed as a matter of right because it is the prerogative of
the employer to assign work to the employee according to the
availability of posts.” Hence, a government employee cannot claim the
right to be posted at a desired location. A claim for posting at a
particular place based on personal or family circumstances does not
create a right to that posting. Such requests can only be considered in
the context of departmental policies and regulations. The department
makes postings based on administrative considerations, state interests,
public interests, and student welfare.
Therefore, the petitioner’s request to be posted to the Bikaner
division instead of Udaipur, in light of the aforementioned facts and
departmental rules, is not considered appropriate. The petitioner’s
demand is rejected, and the representation presented by the petitioner
is disposed of accordingly.”
4. Having gone through the same, I find no irregularity either in
law or on facts, therefore, no grounds to interfere are made out.
5. Secondly, in view of the detailed order dated 19.02.2024
(SBCWP No.16913/2021) (Annex.10) passed in by this very
Bench, wherein when the petitioner earlier approached this Court,
merits and de-merits of cases of the rival parties have been
discussed. Merely because this Court earlier permitted to
challenge the order dated 02.09.2023, no grounds to interfere are
made out. The reasons and discussions contained in the order
dated 19.02.2024 shall be read as part and parcel of the instant
order.
6. No grounds to interfere.
7. Dismissed.
(ARUN MONGA),J
7-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting:- Yes / No
(Downloaded on 14/03/2025 at 10:04:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
