Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 151 (RAJ)

Narendra Kumar Hindani v. State of Rajasthan

2012-01-13

DINESH MAHESHWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 2. By the order dated 25.4.2005 (Annex. 1) the petitioner was appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III and posted at the Government Upper Primary School Lakhmava Chhota (Shivganj). The petitioner joined and continued to work thereat. It appears that by an order dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.3) the Block Elementary Education Officer Panchayat Samiti Shivganj Sirohi put the petitioner on deputation to a Primary School at Kukadi Kheda. However by another order dated 30.11.2011 (Annex.5) the said deputation has been cancelled and the concerned Head of the institution has been directed to relieve the petitioner for joining at the original place of posting. 3. It is pointed out that the school at Lakhmava Chhota that was earlier an Upper Primary School has since been upgraded as a Secondary School. The submissions sought to be made in this writ petition are that the petitioner was selected to work in the Elementary Education and he cannot be forced to work in a Secondary School that comes under the Department of Secondary Education. It is also submitted that the order dated 30.11.2011 is without jurisdiction as the respondent No.4 cannot send the petitioner from the Primary School to a Secondary School. 4. The submissions aforesaid have their fundamental shortcomings in the fact that the petitioner after being selected for Primary and Upper Primary Education and posted at the school at Lakhmava Chhota that was an Upper Primary School at the relevant time continued to work thereat even after the said school was upgraded. The date of upgradation of the school at Lakhmava Chhota has not been stated in the writ petition. In any case the result of the order dated 30.11.2011 (Annex.5) is that the earlier order of deputation as issued on 18.10.2011 (Annex.3) stands cancelled and consequently the Petitioner would be working in the same school at Lakhmava Chhota where he was working prior to passing of this order (Annex.3). With cancellation of deputation none of the legal rights of the petitioner is infringed. In this context the other submission sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner regarding authority of the respondent No.4 in passing the order dated 30.11.2011 (Annex.5) turns out to be redundant because the earlier order dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.3) was also issued by the same officer the respondent No.4. 5. In this context the other submission sought to be made on behalf of the petitioner regarding authority of the respondent No.4 in passing the order dated 30.11.2011 (Annex.5) turns out to be redundant because the earlier order dated 18.10.2011 (Annex.3) was also issued by the same officer the respondent No.4. 5. In the ultimate analysis this Court is unable to find any case of infringement of any legal right of the petitioner or any prejudice being caused to him. It has not been shown if the petitioner is in any manner prejudiced his service conditions including emoluments. 6. The petition remains bereft of substance and stands dismissed.Petition dismissed.. *******