Dinesh Mehta, j. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: "a. The record of the case may kindly be called for; b. The list appended with the notice dated 27.08.2020 Annex.5 issued by the respondent No.3 may kindly be modified and the vacant posts lying in the Sri Ganganagar and Hanumangarh District deserve to be included in the list appended with the notice dated 27.08.2020 Annex.5; c. The respondent No.2/3 may kindly be directed to include the petitioners in the 'In Person Counseling', which is scheduled to be held upto 08.09.2020, after inclusion of vacant seats available at Sri Ganganagar and Hanumangarh District in the Counseling programme; d. The respondent No.2/3 may kindly be directed to post the petitioners on the vacant posts of 'Agriculture Supervisor' available in Sri Ganganagar or Hanumangarh District as per vacant available position of posts vide Annex.2 and e. Any other writ, order directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners"
(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners shall be satisfied if their representation are considered and decided by the respondents in accordance with the policy dated 18.05.2020(Annex.3) and in light of precedent law laid down by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Prakash Chand Kalbeliya v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.945/2018) decided on 15.01.2018. The said judgment reads as under :- "Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that the controversy raised, in the instant writ application, stands resolved in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Anju Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 2226 of 2014; holding thus: "Issue notice. Copies of the writ petitions have been supplied to Shri S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General for the State. All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners working on the post of Teacher Grade-II, Teacher Grade- III and Headmasters, contending that their posting as per instructions of the Government ought to be made as far as possible in the district of their choice on the basis of their merit position. Petitioners have in this connection relied on Circular dated 11/09/2013 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government in its Department of School Education in respect of the Head Masters selected for appointment through Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another Circular dated 03/08/2012 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Government for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department in respect of Teachers Gr. II and Gr. III selected for appointment in Primary and Upper Primary Schools of the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a similar writ petition pertaining to Teacher Grade-III was allowed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012 : Monika Meel v. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur vide order dated 3/10/2012 on the basis of statement made on behalf of the respondent- State that posting in the district of choice would be given to the candidates as per their merit- cum-preference. However, it was also given out that in case of disabled, divorcee, widow and single female, preference will be given to the place of their choice irrespective of their merit position. If any conflict arises in regard to preference inter-se between them, preference would be given to the candidates belonging to any one of these four categories on the basis of his/her merit. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also argued that while some of the candidates have been accommodated within the district of their choice/preference on the basis of merit but the petitioners have not been afforded similar treatment. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the government is prepared to consider request of the petitioners as per instructions issued by it from time to time in regard to posting. If the instructions dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013 continues to be operative, the government upon petitioners approaching, would consider their request subject to their merit-cum preference depending on the availability of vacancies in a given district. Having regard to the facts aforestated and considering the categorical instructions issued by the government dated 03/08/2012 and 11/09/12013, all these writ petitions are disposed of requiring the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners on their application/representation now submitted for their posting as per their merit-cum-preference subject to availability of vacancies in the district of their choice and appropriate order with regard to their posting/fresh posting/transfer to such district, may be passed within two months from the date such application/representation is submitted before them." It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. In view of the limited prayer addressed, the instant writ proceedings stand disposed off with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation to the respondents. In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in the backdrop of opinion in the case of Smt. Anju Meena (supra), as expeditiously as possible, however, in no case later than four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off."
(3.) In light of such submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of the policy dated 18.05.2020 Annex.3 while keeping in mind the aforequoted judgment, within a period of 15 days strictly in accordance with law.;