CW 12072/09 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12072/09 Dara Singh & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12073/09 Neeru Bala Versus State & Ors. [3] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12074/09 Shankar Lal Versus State & Ors. [4] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12075/09 Om Prakash & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [5] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12076/09 Rekha Kumari Yadav Versus State & Ors. [6] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12077/09 Bhanwar Lal Versus State & Ors. [7] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12078/09 Alpana Agarwal Versus State & Ors. [8] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12079/09 Yasir Arfat Versus State & Ors. [9] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12080/09 Salim Mohammad Versus State & Ors. [10] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12081/09 Hanuman Prasad Khod Versus State & Ors. [11] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12082/09 Ramesh Chandra Berwa & Anr.Versus State & Ors. [12] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12083/09 Chanda Rani Jain Versus State & Ors. [13] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12084/09 Deepak Kumar & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [14] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12085/09 Amit Kumar Maan & Ors. Versus State & Ors. [15] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12086/09 Sumer Singh Yadav & Anr. Versus State & Ors. [16] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12087/09 Raina Jain & Ors. Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 05/10/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. D.P. Sharma, for petitioners CW 12072/09 [2] *** Since these petitions involve common question, hence, are being decided by the present order. All the petitioners were selected as Teacher Gr.III on the recommendations of RPSC and became member of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and were appointed in various Districts. Their grievance is that Government at one point of time took policy decision that postings will be made in respective districts according to their merit, but petitioners were appointed in other districts and those who are lower in order of merit, were appointed and posted in the districts of their choice and as such, policy decision of the government is being violated which has compelled them in approaching this court by filing instant petitions. Counsel placed reliance on the order passed in CWP-7502/09 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur with the direction to the writ petitioner to make representation to the concerned authority for passing appropriate orders and for consideration of his representation in accordance with law. CW 12072/09 [3] Counsel further submits that those who are lower in order of merit, were posted in the district of their choice that infringes their right enshrined U/Art.14 of the Constitution of India while giving them appointment in other districts. But, this fact has not been disputed that petitioners have joined in their districts in which they were appointed as Teacher Gr.III. In opinion of this court, submission made by the counsel is without merit for the reason that teachers who were appointed in various Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad are members of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 and their seniority is regulated in accordance with R.285 of Rules, 1996 and transfer from one Zila Parishad to the other is permissible in terms of Sec.89(8)(A) of the Act, 1994. What has been urged by counsel for petitioner about placement in districts according to their choice, is not the requirement of scheme of Rules, 1996 and once the Government after their selection has given them appointment in concerned districts and becoming the member of Rules, 1996, no such application for transfer to the District of their choice is permissible on the basis of their merit. However, the State Government is always competent to examine in the CW 12072/09 [4] exigency of service, if required, while invoking Sec.89(8)(A) of the Act, 1994 transferring employees from one district to the other. But no such transfer could be claimed by the petitioners on the basis of some alleged policy decision of the State Government as a matter of right. Since no right has been accrued to the petitioners under the Act, 1994 & Rules, 1996 seeking transfer from one District to the other, no purpose is going to be served in granting liberty of making representation to the State Government in this regard. As already observed, it is always available for the government to examine exigency of service while invoking its power u/s.89(8)(A) of the Act, 1994. This court find no substance in these writ petitions and are, accordingly, dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA12072CW09 5-10.doc