Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sukriti Arora vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 July, 2026
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2026:RJ-JP:32580]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13845/2026
CNR: RJHC010628712026
URN: CW / 25203U / 2026
Sukriti Arora D/o Ashwani Arora, Aged About 27 Years, R/o New
Civil Line Hanumangarh Junction Dist. Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary
Secondary Education Raj. Jaipur
2. Director, Secondary Education Govt. Of Raj. Bikaner Raj.
3. District Education Officer (Hq), Elementary Education
Sirohi Raj.
4. Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School Fazaldeenwala
Dist. Hanumangarh Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sukriti Arora, present in person
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
18/07/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
claiming following relief(s):-
“(i). To issue an appropriate writ and quash the
impugned order dated 3.6.2015 (Annexuer-7) and the
respondents may be directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for promotion to the post
of Asst Commandant (M)/Dy Commandant (M) as per
the verdict of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of S
Ravichandran & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors WP (C)
No. 1419/2014, decided vide judgement dated
9.3.2015 (Annexure-2, supra) and allow with all
consequential benefits.
(ii). That any other writ, direction, reliefs, or orders
may be passed in favour of the petitioner which may(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:52:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32580] (2 of 5) [CW-13845/2026]be deemed just and proper under the facts and
circumstances of this case.
(iii). That the costs of this writ petition may be
awarded.”
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that
the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher (English Grade-III)
Level-II vide Appointment Order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure-1)
at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Ajari, Sirohi. Upon
successful completion of her probation period, she was confirmed
on the said post by way of Confirmation Letter dated 24.11.2025
(Annexure-3). Subsequently, respondent No.2 issued an
advertisement inviting applications for the posting of teachers in
the newly established Mahatma Gandhi Government School
(English Medium) on deputation basis. Pursuant thereto, the
petitioner was deputed to the said English Medium School vide
Office Order dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure-5). She was accordingly
relieved by her parent department on 27.07.2020 (Annexure-6)
and joined her new posting in compliance thereof.
3. Thereafter, the respondent-authorities circulated
communications to all concerned teachers working at Mahatma
Gandhi Government School (English Medium), inviting them to
exercise their option regarding repatriation to their original
institutions/schools from which they had been deputed. For this
purpose, a specific proforma was provided wherein the option of
repatriation was included. The petitioner, in pursuance of the said
communication, duly submitted her option seeking repatriation to
her parent institution, i.e. Government Upper Primary School,
Krishnaganj, Sirohi (Raj.). However, despite the same being done
by the petitioner, respondents failed to take any action on the
same.
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:52:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32580] (3 of 5) [CW-13845/2026]
4. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted several representations
(Annexure-7) before the respondent-authorities, requesting her
repatriation to the parent department. Nonetheless, the
respondents neither considered, nor adjudicated her
representations. Left with no other remedy, the petitioner, being
aggrieved of the inaction on part of the respondents has preferred
the present writ petition.
5. Petitioner submits that the inaction on part of the
respondent-authorities is unjust, which is not merely a delay but
constitutes abuse of process of law. In this regard, petitioner
further submits that in pursuance of Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil
Services (Special Conditions for Appointment of Personnel in
English Medium Schools) Rules, 2023 (for brevity “the Act of
2023”), a personnel shall be posted after selection to the post
enumerated in Schedule-I generally for a period of one year which
shall be extendible by a process specified by the Director after
review of the performance of the services rendered. He also
submits that the respondents have not considered the relevant
provisions and have continued service of the petitioner on the
deputation basis since the year 2020.
6. In support of her contentions, petitioner submits that in
similar controversy, the Coordinate Bench had allowed the writ
petition vide Order dated 17.07.2025 passed in SBCWP
No.12808/2025 : “Tina Kumari v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.“.
Relevant portion of the order reads as infra:-
“xxxxxxx…
8. This Court is of the clear opinion that-
Firstly, it is not the case of the respondents
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:52:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32580] (4 of 5) [CW-13845/2026]that any such procedure was undertaken for
extension of the services of the petitioner.
Secondly, there is no order of extension
available on record.
Thirdly, no application for extension of
services on deputation was ever filed by the
petitioner.
Fourthly, Condition No.1 cannot be
interpreted in the manner that the services of
any incumbent sent on deputation can be
extended unilaterally. There definitely has to be
a request of the concerned employee for the
purpose.
9. In view of the above analysis, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to repatriate the services of the
petitioner back to her parent department within
a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the certified copy of the present order.
10. Stay petition and pending applications, if
any, stand disposed of.”
7. E-converso, learned counsel representing the respondent-
Department is not in a position to refute that; similar controversy
i.e. Tina Kumar (supra) has been laid to rest by the Coordinate
Bench vide order dated 17.07.2025, the fact that Rule 14 of the
Rules of 2023 also prescribes that a period of posting is generally
for a period of one year and also the fact that there is no common
order passed by the respondents for extension of period of posting
beyond the period of one year.
8. Thus, taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and the fact that similar
controversy has been laid to rest by the Coordinate Bench in the
case of Tina Kumari (supra) and also taking into consideration the
fact that although the service is extendible after a period of one
year based on the performance of the services rendered, the
respondent-authorities have not passed any formal order which
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:52:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:32580] (5 of 5) [CW-13845/2026]
shows that performance of the petitioner was reviewed and thus,
her posting was extended thereafter. This Court also takes into
consideration Rule 14 of the Rules of 2023, which specifically
provides that posting after selection is generally for a period of
one year and in the present case, petitioner is serving with the
respondents since the date she joined i.e. on 27.07.2020.
9. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The respondents are
directed to repatriate the service of the petitioner to her parent
department forthwith.
10. Stay application as well as all pending application(s) also
stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
40/Anil Kumar Choudhary/369
(Uploaded on 18/07/2026 at 01:35:48 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/07/2026 at 08:52:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
