Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2271 (RAJ)

Mahaveer Prasad Fulfkar v. State of Rajasthan

2011-10-21

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
Hon'ble VYAS, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondents to provide them posting in the Bikaner Division because lower meritorious candidates have been posted in Bikaner Division. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the legal question which is raised by the petitioners in this writ petition is that there is no criteria prescribed by the respondents for giving posting to the selected candidates on the post of Teacher Grade II. The petitioners were working in the Bikaner Division on the posts of Teacher Grade-III, thereafter, they were selected through the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the posts of Teacher Grade II and, now, they have been posted at Chohtan (Barmer district) and Jaluwala (Jaisalmer district) whereas lower meritorious persons have been given posting in the Bikaner Division, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners for providing them posting in the Bikaner Division on the posts of Teacher Grade II. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the method of pick and choose is not proper. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that mandamus can be prayed for against the respondents for appointment and restoring fundamental rights of the petitioners. It is very strange that the petitioners have been selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-II and the Education Department is required to post all the teachers in whole of the State. For that purpose, under the Rules there is no provision for adopting any procedure to give posting to the meritorious candidates as per their desire. 4. It is worthwhile to observe here that the petitioners' candidature was considered by the RPSC and they were found suitable for their appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade II; and, accordingly, the Commission recommended them to the Education Department and, thereafter, orders for their posting have been issued by the Education Department. The candidates selected by the Commission can claim appointment; but, there is no provision in the rules to claim particular place of posting. The candidates selected by the Commission can claim appointment; but, there is no provision in the rules to claim particular place of posting. In this case, however, the prayer of the petitioners is that they are meritorious and less meritorious persons have been given posting in Bikaner Division, therefore, they deserve to be given posting in Bikaner Division where they were earlier working in the Education Department on the posts of Teacher Grade-III. 5. In my opinion, such type of prayer at the initial stage of appointment itself is unwarranted. It is true that the candidates who possess qualification can ask for consideration for appointment; but, here, in this case, the Teachers who were found suitable for their appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade II are asking that they be given posting in Bikaner Division. The Education Department is under obligation to post selected candidates in every district of the State and such type of prayer while invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the basic principles of law because it is the prerogative of the employer to give posting to its employees as per the administrative exigency. Therefore, the Court cannot interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is casual manner. 6. The petitioners have been provided appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-II, therefore, it is expected from them to be aware of the basic principles of the Constitution of India. The petitioners should be ready and willing to serve not only in particular district but the whole of the State. In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the Education Department can post teachers in any district of the State and no employee can object to such posting. 7. In the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2486 and 2444, it is held by the Apex Court that it is the prerogative of the employer to post any employee at a place where the employer desires to post and no employee can claim posting at a particular place, but, in this case, after providing appointment the petitioners are objecting to the place of posting at the initial stage. It may be noted that teachers are farmers of education system and if such unwilling teachers will work in the department then who is going to serve the country. 8. Hence, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-.