LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-198

SANTOSH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

Decided On January 10, 2012
SANTOSH SHARMA Appellant
V/S
State of Rajasthan And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner/appellant has preferred this intra Court appeal against order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Bench, whereby writ petition preferred by the appellant, challenging validity of Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of The Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971(for short, 'the Rules of 1971'), has been dismissed.

(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Teacher Grade III vide order dated 25.02.1974 and promoted as Teacher Grade II vide order dated 09.01.1981. Seniority List of Teacher Grade II was published by the respondents on 26.10.1993. Name of the appellant/petitioner finds place at Serial No. 786. She submitted an application for her transfer on her own request from Jodhpur to Kota range, which was accepted and she was transferred to Kota range. Since her transfer was as per her own request, therefore, her seniority in Kota range was determined as per Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971. As per Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971, it was explained that a person, working on the post of senior teachers/teacher or equivalent posts when transferred from one district/range to another district/range on his own request, shall be placed just below the junior most person in seniority list of the new district/range from the date of taking over the charge in the new district/range and will cease to have any right of his seniority in the district/range from which he has been transferred. Since the appellant was transferred on her own request, therefore, her seniority was changed. In these circumstances, she filed a writ petition challenging Explanation appended to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971. Learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that there is reasonable nexus in adding Explanation to Proviso (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 and it is in consonance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this intra Court Appeal.