Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2095 (RAJ)

Priyanka Ojha v. State of Rajasthan

2021-11-11

ARUN BHANSALI

body2021
JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 22.8.2018 (Annex.5), 23.8.2018 (Annex.6) and 7.9.2018 (Annex.7), whereby, on account of reshuffling, the petitioner was allotted district Tonk, she was called for counselling and has been relieved, respectively. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner was selected as Teacher Gr.III pursuant to the recruitment, 2016, and was allotted district Bhilwara and posted at a school vide Annex.1 on 28.3.2018, though district Tonk was her higher preference. As the petitioner was posted at district Bhilwara, her husband, who is also a Government servant, got himself transferred within the same division i.e. at Ajmer place near to Bhilwara and on account of transfer at his request, he was given bottom seniority at Ajmer. It is submitted that on account of reshuffling, the petitioner became entitled, on account of her moving up, for being allotted district Tonk, however, without seeking her consent, by order dated 28.8.2018 (Annex.5), her district was changed from Bhilwara to Tonk and consequential orders were passed in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as on account of her posting at district Bhilwara, she has changed her position, whereby her husband also got himself transferred in the same division at Ajmer, therefore, the change of petitioner's district, in the circumstances of the case, is not justified. Submissions have been made that the respondents for the Recruitment-2018, in similar circumstances, by their communication dated 12.2.2019, have specifically provided that on account of reshuffling, if somebody was required to be shifted, consent would be taken, which clearly shows that an employee, based on reshuffling, normally should not be transferred without taking his/her consent and, therefore, the action of the respondents, in peculiar circumstances, deserves to be set aside. Learned AAG submitted that admittedly the petitioner had given higher preference to district Tonk and on account of reshuffling as vacant posts were available at Tonk, the petitioner was allotted district Tonk, which cannot be questioned by her. Further submissions have been made that instructions dated 12.2.2019 are subsequent to the orders passed and, therefore, the same cannot enure for the benefit of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. Further submissions have been made that instructions dated 12.2.2019 are subsequent to the orders passed and, therefore, the same cannot enure for the benefit of the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The facts are not in dispute, whereby, the petitioner on account of her merit was initially allotted district Bhilwara and was accorded posting. Based on her status, her husband thought it proper to got himself transferred from Tonk to Ajmer within the same division i.e. place near to Bhilwara and was placed at bottom seniority there. On account of the subsequent reshuffling, due to non-joining of certain candidates at various places, the petitioner's position moved up and she became entitled for posting at Tonk, which was accorded to her vide Annex.5. Admittedly, before allotting the said district, the petitioner's choice/consent as to whether she wanted to move from Bhilwara was not taken. In normal circumstances, where a person has given his/her preference No.4 - Tonk and preference No.10 - Bhilwara, the candidate would always be happy to be moved to his/her higher choice, however, on account of typical circumstances in the present case, wherein, the petitioner's husband got himself transferred to a place nearer to petitioner's place of posting, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order of allotment to district Tonk. It appears that on account of the circumstances, which happened in the year 2018, whereby certain candidates who were moved up on account of reshuffling, did not want to change their district, the Circular dated 12.2.2019 came to be issued for the Recruitment-2018, requiring consent of the candidates for being moved up/to other district on account of reshuffling. Though the said circular apparently is not applicable to petitioner's case, however, the very fact that State has subsequently come to realize the difficulties of candidates, even if they were moved up i.e. to their higher choice, the fact that petitioner did not give consent to the said allotment of district Tonk, on account of her moving up, assumes significance and as the petitioner on account of peculiar circumstances as indicated hereinbefore, has a genuine grievance, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. It may also be noticed that the order dated 7.9.2018 (Annex.7) relieving the petitioner came to be stayed by this Court on 24.9.2018 and the petitioner continues to serve at district Bhilwara. In view of the above peculiar fact situation, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders dated 22.8.2018 (Annex.5), 23.8.2018 (Annex.6) and 7.9.2018 (Annex.7), qua the petitioner, are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to change the district allotted to the petitioner.