AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Mehta, J
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner belongs to OBC-WD category, she was selected against respective
category and qua the candidates belonging to OBC category and lower in merit to the petitioner, while allotting divisions, petitioner has not been
allotted divisions as per her higher choice and those lower in merit as OBC candidates have been allotted division, which was sought for by the
petitioner.
Submissions have been made that in Sunita Kumari Meena v. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23680/2018, decided on 02.04.2019
at Jaipur bench, in similar circumstances directions have been given for redrawing the list as per the directions indicated.
 3. In the case of Sunita Kumari Meena (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed as under:â€
“Consequently I would direct that in determining the preference of the MRC candidates for allocation of ranges/divisions as Senior Teachers they
be considered against the reserved category posts in each of the division/range for which they have sought allocation on the basis of their inter se
merit vis-a-vis other reserved category candidates. I am also of the considered view that the mere fact that the RPSC made recommendations in a
truncated manner cannot give any benefit to the candidates lower in the select list or any right over those higher in merit in the select list for the
purpose of allocation on the basis of their merit cum preference. Even otherwise in the course of hearing the petition/s it has transpired that the
deficiencies in the verification process were rectified by the concerned higher placed selected candidates much before the order of allocation of
divisions/ranges to those lower in the merit in the select list drawn pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016. And it cannot with any plausibility
be denied, as it was indeed not by Mr. Ganesh Meena, that where in the same list of recommendations by RPSC candidates, candidates higher in
merit in the respective category have been denied their preference of allocation of ranges/divisions while those lower in the same category were given
their preference in the allocation, the respondents are under an obligation to make the requisite correction in view of the selected candidates' legitimate
expectation and ensure firm adherence to the State Government's own guidelines of 04.03.2018.
It is no doubt true that the exercise of allocation of divisions/ranges to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016 has
largely been completed. It is also true that redoing of the said exercise in the whole or part as would be necessitated by strict adherence to the
guidelines of 04.03.2018 would entail some amount of disruption. That however by itself cannot suffice for this court to condone substantial
contravention of the respondent-State Government's guidelines dated 04.03.2018. Law, fairness and justice not expediency has to prevail. The
academic year 2018-19 has been concluded. The new academic year 2019-20 is to commence only in the month of July 2019 as stated by Mr. Ganesh
Meena, AAG. In these circumstances no serious unmanageable disruption in the coming academic calendar of the concerned schools is likely to be
caused in the event the State Government were to be directed to strictly adhere to its guidelines of 04.03.2018 for allocation of ranges/divisions to the
Senior Teacher selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.07.2016.
 Consequently these petitions are disposed of with the direction that the allocation of ranges/divisions to Senior Teachers selected pursuant to the
advertisement dated 13.07.2016 be done afresh in accordance with the observations of this court earlier in this judgment. This direction be complied
within a period of two months from today.â€
From the above directions, it is apparent that the grievance as raised by the petitioner has been accepted by the Court and two months' time have
been granted for allocation of ranges/divisions to the Senior Teachers in accordance with the observations made by the Court.
The directions issued in the case of Sunita Kumari Meena (supra) would take care of the petitioner's case as well and as the petitioner has already
made a representation in this regard, the respondents while redrawing the allocation of ranges/divisions shall keep the grievance of the petitioner in
mind.
With the above observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioner stand disposed of.
The stay application also stands disposed of.