[2026:RJ-JP:11992] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5165/2026 Durgesh Parmar, W/o Late Shri Jandel Singh D/o Shri Nihal Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Dam Dam Ka Para, tehsil Bari District Dholpur, Presently Functioning As Hostel Superintendent, Girls Ashram Hostel Angai, Panchayat Samiti Baseri, District Dholpur, Resident of District Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Tribal Area Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Director Elementary Education And Panchayat Raj, (Elementary Education) Department , Bikaner Rajasthan. 3. Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur, Rajasthan. 5. District Education Officer (Elementary), Dholpur, Rajasthan 6. Block Elementary Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Baseri, District Dholpur. 7. Smt Rajeshwari Meena, Teacher Level-I, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School, Chelwas, Marwar Junction , Pali, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/03/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has assailed order Annexure-14 passed in compliance of order dated 16.02.2026 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Elementary Education Jaipur, whereby as many as 252 candidates have been deputed on the post of Post of Hostel Superintendent under Rule 144-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter to be [2026:RJ-JP:11992] (2 of 3) [CW-5165/2026] referred as 'the RSR'). Grievance of the petitioner is that earlier vide order dated 11.06.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, the petitioner was posted as Hostel Superintendent at Angai Hostel till further orders and since then, the petitioner has been continuing on the said post, however, ignoring the fact that in the initial order dated 11.06.2015 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, it was mentioned that such posting was till regular appointment Hostel Superintendent, vide Annexure-14, some other person has also been deputed as Hostel Superintendent, Angai ignoring the preferential claim of the petitioner. 3. Contention of the petitioner is totally misconceived for the reason that bare perusal of order dated 11.06.2015 would reveal that no procedure for selection/deputation whatsoever was adopted by the Chief Executive Officer at the time of posting the petitioner at Hostel Superintendent, Girls Ashram Hostel Angai and order dated 11.06.2015 itself refers that such posting was given only on telephonic instructions of Additional Commissioner (I) of Tribal Area Development Department. 4. Whereas, admittedly the impugned order Annexure-14 has been issued after following the due process of selection by deputation under Rule 144-A of the RSR. Such process, has although been challenged by the petitioner, yet admittedly the petitioner herself has also participated in such process and when she remained unsuccessful, she has challenged the order impugned. Submission of the petitioner that earlier also in the year 2024, the petitioner was selected for deputation under Rule 144-A of the RSR is also of no help to the petitioner for the reason that the period of deputation under Rule 144-A is generally one [2026:RJ-JP:11992] (3 of 3) [CW-5165/2026] year although extendable upto four years. In the instant case admittedly, the new process was adopted and initiated by the respondents after expiry of one year from the earlier date of deputation of the petitioner. 5. It is settled proposition of law that no one has right to continue on deputation and the competent authority is well within its right to pass order of repatriation, where the need so arises. In the instant case, since general process was adopted by the respondents under the Rules and as many as 252 candidates have been selected on the post of Hostel Superintendent at different places in the State of Rajasthan and petitioner has not alleged any allegation of malafides against any of the Officer, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 6. So far as grievance of the petitioner with regard to deputation allowance for the period she has worked as deputationist, the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation in this regard before the competent authority who shall consider and decide the representation by speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation along with a certified copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /28