Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 399 (RAJ)

Santosh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-19

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court, with a grievance that her request for being posted at her home district has not been heeded to by the respondents, despite clear policy dated 25.9.2013 issued by the State Government. 2. The facts within the precincts of petitioner's grievance are that she was appointed as Teacher Grade-III by the State Government in Rajasthan Elementary Education Council(hereinafter referred to as 'the Council'), who vide order dated 19/22.2.2011, was sent on deputation in 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan', under the aegis of the Council - respondent no.2. 3. The Council issued a policy vide its circular dated 25.2.2011 duly reiterated vide communication dated 26.9.2013, to the effect that all the teachers working under 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' on deputation with Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidhyalaya, on satisfactory completion of four years' service would be repatriated to their parent department and would be entitled for posting in their home district. 4. The petitioner having completed four years' satisfactory services was relived by the Council vide its order dated 6.5.2016; soon whereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 7.5.2016 and requested the District Education Officer to post her in Jodhpur - her home district. 5. Petitioner's such request remained pending for a considerable period, for which, she filed a writ petition being SBCWP No.5385/2016 before this Court. 6. According to the petitioner, an assurance was given to her, that she would be provided appropriate posting, for which, she withdrew her writ petition on 18.8.2017 acting upon such assurance. 7. To complete the narration of the facts, suffice it to mention that in the writ petition aforesaid filed by the petitioner, on 6.5.2016, an interim order was passed, as a consequence whereof she remained with the respondent-Council. 8. As per the case set up by the petitioner, notwithstanding the assurance given for providing appropriate posting in District Jodhpur, the respondent-Council vide orders dated 16.7.2017 and14.12.2017 repatriated the petitioner again to the District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Barmer requiring her to discharge her duties in District Barmer. 9. Faced with such situation, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition at hands. By way of an interim order granted on 20.12.2017, aforesaid orders dated 6.11.2017 (Annex.7) and 14.12.2017 (Annex.8) have been stayed; petitioner is continuing with respondent -Council. 10. Mr. 9. Faced with such situation, the petitioner has preferred the writ petition at hands. By way of an interim order granted on 20.12.2017, aforesaid orders dated 6.11.2017 (Annex.7) and 14.12.2017 (Annex.8) have been stayed; petitioner is continuing with respondent -Council. 10. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has indisputably completed more than four years' of service in 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' (KGBV), and thus, entitled for posting in her own district as per the policy dated 25.2.2011 issued by the respondent-Council. 11. It was argued that the respondents by their vindictive attitude have denied the petitioner her legitimate right and the orders impugned sending her to District Education Officer, Barmer to be posted in District Barmer are illegal and liable to be quashed. 12. Mr. PR Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Council with perseverance pointed out that the petitioner was appointed on 19.2.2011, whereas the policy, benefits whereof are being claimed, came into being on 25.2.2011 in a bid to to argue that the policy in question which has come into operation after petitioner's appointment cannot be made applicable to the petitioner and she cannot take advantage of the policy. 13. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner had simply written a letter (Annex.3) instead of furnishing an option form in the prescribed format. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. The policy dated 25.2.2011 indubitably confers a right upon a teacher, who has served under 'Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan' (KGBV) for more than four years, to be posted in her home district. The petitioner has served in remote areas and thus, is clearly entitled for the fruits of such policy/circular issued by the State. 16. This Court is unable to accept the argument advanced by the respondents that since the policy in question came into vogue after petitioner's appointment, the same is not applicable to her. 17. There cannot be a question of prospective operation of an ameliorative policy of the Government, unless the policy in express terms intends so to do. A scheme of the State like the one under consideration, brought to remedy hardship or to confer advantage has to apply from the date it is introduced and same cannot be made subservient to a fortuitous event, namely date of appointment. 18. A scheme of the State like the one under consideration, brought to remedy hardship or to confer advantage has to apply from the date it is introduced and same cannot be made subservient to a fortuitous event, namely date of appointment. 18. In the opinion of this Court, if the argument advanced by the respondents were to be accepted, then the policy, which has been brought into force on 22.2.2011, will come into operation at least after four years of its inception and that too, confining to those teachers, who have been appointed after 22.2.2011. 19. Such an interpretation would hit at the very purpose of the policy framed by the State for giving incentive to teachers to serve the schools in rural areas. Such interpreation, per se would lead to discrimination, creating class within the class, for no reasonable nexus. 20. The fact that the petitioner has successfully served in "Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan" since 2011, is not at all in dispute. 21. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be posted in her home district, i.e., Jodhpur- it is her indefeasible right flowing from the Policy. 22. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has observed the formality of filling up the prescribed form, as required by the Court on 4.4.2018. 23. The writ petition, for the reasons aforesaid, is allowed. The respondent no.2 (Rajasthan Elementary Education Council) shall forward petitioner's name to the Director, Elementary Education within a period of 15 days from today, with a copy of this order to ensure that petitioner is provided posting in District Jodhpur. 24. On receipt of such recommendation, the Director, Elementary Education shall post the petitioner in any vacant post available in District Jodhpur, within a period of four weeks. The entire exercise be done on or before 31.3.2020. 25. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, as he is not a party in this case. 26. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.