[2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 641/2022 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner. ----Appellants Versus 1. Samiksha Sharma D/o Shri Ramakant Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Bharli, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur. 2. Rishab Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Hariom Sharma (Merit No. WL- 22095), Through District Elementary Education Officer, Dholpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chinmay Saxena (Ast. GC), Mr. Jitendra Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Sharma, Mr. Naresh Gupta HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA JUDGMENT 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 25/11/2025 2. Date on which judgment was reserved 25/11/2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced Full judgment 4. Date of pronouncement 28/11/2025 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maneesh Sharma) 1. The instant intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 and Article 225 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (2 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] Court in SBCWP No. 1041/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1, and directed the appellant-State to allot District-Dholpur to the respondent No.1. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant special appeal writ are that the Director of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, issued an advertisement dated 12.04.2018 for direct recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in Primary and Upper Primary Schools. The respondent No.1 applied for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 12.04.2018, (Non-TSP); and in the application form the respondent No.1 filled in District- Dholpur as her first preference. The appellant-State had issued the final merit list, in which the respondent No.1 was not selected, the appellant-State then issued the first waiting list on 08.05.2019/15.05.2019 after reshuffling the district posting of all selected candidates, and respondent No.1 found her place at Merit List No.20176 (Sr. No. 10522) and was allotted District-Barmer on 22.07.2019 and joined the same on 13.08.2019. Subsequently, the appellant-State issued the second waiting list for 894 selected candidates on 29.12.2020/18.01.2021, wherein the appellant-State did not reshuffle the entire select list; as a consequence, the respondent No.2 was allotted his home district, i.e., Dholpur. 3. Therefore, the respondent No.1 filed a writ petition on 25.01.2021 with the following reliefs: “i. quash and set aside the order dated 18.1.2021 (Annx.7) passed by the respondent No.2; [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (3 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] ii. issue fresh order/list of all selected candidates to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-I) General Teacher and allot them the district of posting after reshuffling the entire list (including waiting list) on the basis of merit-cum-preference; iii. direct the respondents to give posting/transfer to the petitioner in Panchayat Samiti Baseri, District Dholpur." 4. In the writ petition, it was contended by the respondent No.1 that as per Clause 13(3) of the said advertisement, after selection, the candidate shall be allotted the district of posting on the basis of merit-cum-preference, whereas vide second waiting list dated 29.12.2020/18.01.2021, a lesser meritorious candidate (Merit No.22095), namely, Rishabh Kumar Sharma, (respondent No.2) was allotted his home district i.e. District-Dholpur. The respondent No.1 placed reliance upon a judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Monika Meel v. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur1. 5. In reply to the writ petition, the appellant-state contended that as per the directions issued by this Court the State Government issued the first waiting list dated 08.05.2019/15.05.2019 to fill up such vacant posts of the candidates, who were selected in the main select list but failed to appear for document verification/failed to join on the post till the prescribed date and accordingly the proceeding was conducted by the department to reshuffle the selection process and vide order dated 08.05.2019/15.05.2019 respondent No.1 was allotted District-Barmer as per her merit and availability of posts. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 was appointed to District-Barmer in accordance with the posts available at the time 1SB Civil Writ Petition No.15668/2012 [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (4 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] and that the respondent No.1 willfully expressed her consent for the same, and joined her allotted post in District-Barmer on 13.08.2019, and therefore, no right accrues for a change in posting on account of appointments made from the second waiting list dated 29.12.2020/18.01.2021. It was also contended that even though the respondent No.1 had joined her posting at District-Barmer on 13.08.2019, the writ petition was filed after a significant delay on 25.01.2021; therefore, the writ petition ought to be dismissed. 6. After detailed deliberation of the facts and record of the case, while relying upon a judgment of this Court in Monika Meel (Supra), the learned Single Judge allowed the respondent No.1's petition, and directed the appellant-State to allot District-Dholpur to the respondent No.1 on the basis of her position in the merit list. 7. Aggrieved by which the appellant-State has preferred the instant intra-court appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-state submits that the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and suffers from legal perversity. He further submits that the respondent No.1 was posted in District-Barmer: (i) as per the availability of posts, since at that point in time no posts were available in District-Dholpur, and (ii) in view of the respondent No.1's express consent given during her counselling. He further submits that even though the respondent No.1 had joined her posting at District-Barmer on 13.08.2019, the writ petition was filed after a significant delay on 25.01.2021, after the selection [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (5 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] process had already culminated, and all the candidates had been given appointment after reshuffling of the result in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, thus, it cannot be said that the appellant acted in mala fide. He lastly contends that the impugned order is bad in law, as the judgment referred therein, i.e., Monika Meel (Supra) was clearly distinguishable on facts, he further relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in State of Rajasthan Vs. Mohd. Barkat Khan & Ors.2. He therefore prays that the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-State, and supports the impugned order dated 21.01.2022 and submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any arbitrariness, perversity, or infirmity to warrant interference by this Court; rather the impugned order was rightly passed in view of the Clause 13(3) of the advertisement, he therefore prays that the instant intra-court appeal may kindly be dismissed. 10. Heard the submissions made at bar, and perused the material available on record as well as judgments so cited. 11. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent No.1 was selected vide first waiting list dated 08.05.2019/15.05.2019, which was published to fill up such 2 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.477/2021 [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (6 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] vacant posts of the candidates, who were selected in the main select list but failed to appear for document verification/failed to join on the post till the prescribed date, and thus, respondent No.1 found her place at Merit List No.20176 (Sr. No. 10522) and was allotted District-Barmer on 22.07.2019 and joined the same on 13.08.2019. Subsequently, the appellant-State issued the second waiting list for 894 selected candidates on 29.12.2020/18.01.2021, wherein the appellant-State, as per the policy decision dated 25.02.2019, did not reshuffle the entire select list; as a consequence, the respondent No.2 was allotted his home district, i.e., Dholpur. 12. It is also revealed from the record that respondent No.1 was, vide order dated 22.07.2019, allotted District-Barmer as per her merit and availability of the posts, and had expressed her consent for the same in the counselling held by the appellant-State, and had thereafter, joined her posting in District-Barmer on 13.08.2019. Only after a passage of more than one and a half years, did the respondent No.1 file the delayed writ petition on 25.01.2021. 13. As far as the precedent so relied upon by the respondent No.1 is concerned, the judgment in Monika Meel (Supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts. Even otherwise, in compliance of the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Rajasthan Public Services Commission Vs. Jata Shanker & Ors.3, the State Government issued a policy decision dated 25.02.2019 to not to reshuffle the select list more than once 3 D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.832/2018 [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (7 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] because the State Government was of the view that if frequent process of reshuffling is undertaken, the postings/districts of the previously selected candidates would be disturbed, which would cause serious administrative difficulties in as much as fresh counselling would be required to be undertaken in the new district and significant additional expenditure would be incurred. 14. The State Government had passed the policy decision dated 25.02.2019 according to which only one exercise of reshuffling would be undertaken to fill the posts that remain vacant on account of non-joining of the candidates/rejection of the candidature of the candidates pursuant to the document verification. It had been decided that reshuffling would be undertaken by strict adherence to the Rules of reservation and thus, the position of the candidates who have already joined in pursuance of the first select list would not be disturbed. The candidates who were selected by operation of the waiting list would be offered postings against district-wise vacancies based on counselling and as per their choice. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted, as the allotment of District-Dholpur to respondent No.2 is in consonance with the State Government's policy decision dated 25.02.2019. 15. Further, while dealing with a controversy of almost similar nature relating to the district allotment for the post of Teacher Grade-III, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in State of Raj. Vs. Mohd. Barkat Khan (Supra) has held as under: [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (8 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] “At the outset, we may note here that while deciding the controversy, the learned Single Bench drew analogy from the judgment in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) and extended the relief to the writ- petitioners herein. It is worthwhile to mention that the recruitment in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) was made under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 for the post of Senior Teachers whereas, the cases at hand pertain to recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I & Level-II) under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Thus, on the face of it, the ratio in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) could not have been applied to the recruitment which was made under a different set of Rules. It is an admitted position that in the case of recruitment to the Teachers Grade-III, (Level I & Level- II), the seniority lists are maintained district-wise. The State Government has taken a policy decision dated 25.02.2019 not to reshuffle the seniority lists more than once because if frequent process of reshuffling is undertaken, the postings/districts of the previously selected candidates would be disturbed. This causes serious administrative difficulties in asmuch as fresh counselling is required to be undertaken in the new district and significant additional expenditure is incurred. The State Government has passed the direction No. 3.1 (reproduced supra) that only one exercise of reshuffling would be undertaken to fill the posts which remain vacant on account of non-joining of the candidates/rejection of the candidature of the candidates pursuant to the document verification. It has been decided that reshuffling would be undertaken by strict adherence to the Rules of reservation and thus, the position of the candidates who have already joined in pursuance of the first select list would not be disturbed. The candidates who are selected by operation of the waiting list would be offered postings against district-wise vacancies based on counselling and as per their choice. We are of the firm view that this exercise can only be undertaken qua the candidates who have come into the zone of consideration owing to non-joining by successful candidates and exclusion of the candidates pursuant to document verification. The candidates who have been selected by operation of waiting list cannot be integrated into the original merit list while offering them the place of posting because such a course of action would lead to chaos, grave administrative difficulties and significant expenditure. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Bench, accepting the writ petitions of the respondents on the basis of the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Poonam Sharma (supra) are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are hence, reversed.” (Emphasis Supplied) 16. Thus, in view of the fact that since: (i) the respondent No.1 had been selected owing to non-joining by successful candidates and exclusion of the candidates pursuant to document verification; (ii) the respondent-candidate had given her express consent for posting to District-Barmer and had joined the same vide joining letter dated 13.08.2019; (iii) the judgment in Monika Meel (Supra) has no application to the present matter since the same [2025:RJ-JP:47813-DB] (9 of 9) [SAW-641/2022] the same is distinguishable on facts; and (iv) the judgment in State of Raj. Vs. Mohd. Barkat Khan (Supra), while dealing with a controversy of a similar nature, a Co-ordinate bench of this Court at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur, had allowed the intra-court appeal while considering the policy decisions taken by the Government vide policy decision dated 25.02.2019 and denied relief to the candidate therein, hence, it cannot be said that Clause 13(3) of the advertisement has been violated in any manner. 17. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to allow the present intra-court appeal, and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 21.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 18. Accordingly, the present special appeal stands allowed. 19. All other pending application(s), also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA), ACTING CJ Sourav/35