1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7631/2009 (Indra Purohit Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7632/2009 ( KIRAN VYAS VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7705/2009 ( ANITA BAI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7716/2009 (JAGDISH SARAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7717 /2009 ( OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7718 /2009 (PADMA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7719/2009 (SOPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7720/2009 ( MOOL CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7721 /2009 ( SUBH KARAN GODARA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7722/2009 ( RAMNIWAS VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7723/2009 (SHANKAR LAL JAT VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7724/2009 ( DALA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7725/2009 ( JOGENDRA PAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7726 /2009 (BACHCHU SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7734/2009 (SURESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7735/2009 (ANUP SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7736/2009 ( MAHENDRA PAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7737/2009 ( SHYAM SUNDER VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7738/2009 (JANARDAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7759/2009 ( KESHAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7703/2009 ( VIRENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7689 /2009 ( JYOTI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7690/2009 (SHARVAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7691/2009 (RAJNISH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7692 /2009 ( LABHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7693/2009 ( VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7706/2009 ( KUSUM LALA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7730/2009 ( SIKANDAR B. KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7837/2009 (RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7840/2009 ( SEEMA DEVI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7841 /2009 (SUNITA BAI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7857 /2009 ( SAMPAT DASS VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7858 /2009 (LALIT KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7787 /2009 ( MUNNA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7790/2009 (RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS S.S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7791/2009 (JETA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7733 /2009 ( SINGARA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7775/2009 ( SEEMA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7796/2009 ( HANUMAN RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7797/2009 ( DHANNA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7890/2009 (MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7834/2009 ( BHANWAR LAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7835/2009 ( RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7836/2009 (SAROJ CHOUDHARY VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7849 /2009 ( JAGDISH PRASAD VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7859/2009 ( RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7910 /2009 ( BHANWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7851 /2009 (MAGGA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7874/2009 ( CHANDER SHEKHER VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7911/2009 ( SARVJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7917 /2009 ( TARACHAND VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7918/2009 ( ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7919 /2009 (RAMAWATAR VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7920 /2009 ( SUKH DEV VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7921/2009 ( GIRDHARI RAM VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7923 /2009 ( AJIJ KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7924 /2009 ( AYAZ KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7925 /2009 ( ARJUNLAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7931/2009 ( ANITA KUMARI VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7932/2009 ( SARITA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7933/2009 (SHYAM LAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. 5 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7934 /2009 ( SANGEETA VS. STATE OF RAJ. & ORS. DATE OF ORDER : 3.8.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr. Nimesh Suthar, SKM Vyas, RL Baloch, DL Rawla, VR Choudhary, IJ Yadav, Deepak Nehra, Ramdev Potalia, NL Hirania, Shri Ram Choudhary, Sajjan Singh, BS Kohinoor, MP Parik, RS Choudhary, Manoj Parik for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhati for Mr. RL Jangid AAG <><><> By this common judgment all these writ petitions are decided by taking into account the facts of the case of SBCWP No. 7631/09 ( Indra Purohit Vs. State of Raj & Ors.). The petitioner is a Primary School Teacher, he was selected for the post in the year,2007 and he was allotted the posting vide order 26.8.2007. The petitioner's contention is that his bonafide residence is of District, Bikaner. While applying in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Teacher Grade-III, he desired his posting in the District, Bikaner. The petitioner was not given the posting on the post of his choice vide order dated 26.8.2007 and he has been posted in Jaisalmer District. 6 The petitioner's contention is that in several writ petitions and leading case was SBCWP No. 4550/2009- Raj Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Decided on 6.5.2009, the contention of the petitioner was that while making appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, the respondents have not adhered to the preference desired by his/her/their for his/her/their posting. It was also contended that the person(s) who stood at lower pedestal than petitioner(s) were employed at the place of their choice, but the same treatment was not extended to the petitioner(s). This Court observed that though the posting as per preference cannot be claimed as a right, however, the same being asked by the respondents themselves in the application form, it is expected from them to adhere the same as far as possible. After taking said view, the writ petition No. 4550/09 ( Raj Bala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) were disposed of and respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner(s) claiming posting as per preference given by the candidate(s). Thereafter, hundreds of petitioners approached this Court for the same relief as was granted in SBCWP 7 No.4550/2009. All those petitioners were allowed to submit the representation and respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioners. In subsequent order as passed in SBCWP No. 7592/2009 (Smt. Sumitra Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) decided on 29.7.2009 this Court clearly observed that though the petitioner have been given permission to submit representation which may be considered by the State Government for their posting at their desired place, but authorities concerned were given full liberty to take into consideration the delay with which petitioners have approached for the relief before this Court and after considering that delayed approach, the respondents were directed to grant relief, if yet relief can be granted to the petitioners. Now in the month of August, 2009 this matter has come up before this Court seeking the same relief, which has been granted by this Court in Raj Balal's case on the ground that the petitioners may also be allowed to submit representation and learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that same treatment be given to the petitioners 8 in this writ petition. It is also submitted that this Court already in Sumitra's case observed that the State may take into account the delay while deciding the representation of the petitioners. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that in the case of Raj Bala ( Supra) relief has been granted to Teachers Grade-III in the matter of their posting, but this relief has been granted after observing as under:- “......though the posting as per preference cannot be claimed as a right, however, the same being asked by the respondents themselves in the application form, it is expected from them to adhere the same as far as possible”. Therefore in view of the order passed in Raj Bala's case itself no employee has any right for the posting as per his/her preference and this Court granted relief because the reason that respondents themselves asked for the desire from the candidates for posting. The fact situation is now changed inasmuch as the petitioner, who was appointed on the post of Primary Teacher Grade III in the Year 2007, accepted that posting in the year 2007 itself and he had no grievance against his 9 posting contrary to his desire if it would have been but when the order was passed in the case of Raj Bala's case by this Court then only petitioner preferred writ petition. This court in larger interest and in view of the respondents themselves asked employee to give their choice of posting then in that situation held that employee should be given posing of choice because that was choice demanded by the respondents. This process of reshuffling cannot be continued now at this belated time because of the reasons that post which petitioners is holding is the post of Teacher in Primary School where now sessions already started and at this stage there is no reason to reshuffling of the teacher so as to harm to the studies of the children. At this juncture it will be worthwhile to mention here that once appointments are given, the employer has right to pass order of transfer. Looking to the power and scope which vest in the employer, if the administrative exigencies require transfer of one employee to other place, that right of employer can be exercised by the employer to redress the grievance of any individual employee therefore, it is appropriate to leaving the matter to discretion to the employer who can take decision on the basis of grievance. 10 In view of the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief to the petitioner for the reasons mentioned above. Hence, the all writ petitions are dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. arti