एस्पिपिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से इंटरडिस्ट्रिक्ट ट्रांसफर मामले में कोर्ट कार्यवाही
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018
Heard Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
The delay explained in the affidavit discloses sufficient cause. Delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Appeal shall be given regular number.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on appeal
This appeal assails the order dated 13.08.2018 in the writ petition filed by the appellant pertaining to the relief prayed for namely that the application of the petitioner should be processed for transfer from Lakhimpur Kheri to Muzaffar Nagar. This is a matter of inter-district transfer of Assistant Teachers pursuant to Government Orders dated 13.6.2017, 20.09.2017 and 05.09.2018 read with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.
A large number of writ petitions were filed pertaining to transfer in aspirational districts and this legal issue came to be decided by answering the three questions framed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 holding that Assistant Teachers, who are working in aspirational districts, have no right of inter-districts transfer. It is further held that in the matter of transfer, the Board has the authority to frame guidelines and such guidelines, if framed, do not violate the Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the said bunch, the appellant's case was also listed and it has been dismissed applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Ruchi versus State of U.P. and 2 others delivered on the same day.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that apart from the aforesaid legal issue, there was a specific case set up by the appellant in paragraph no. 32 and 33 to the following effect :
"32. That the entire exercise that has been undertaken by the respondents pertaining to the inter-district-transfer of the primary school teachers suffers from arbitrariness which is apparent from the face of the record inasmuch as the candidates who have secured 5 points have been granted inter-district-transfer.
33. That the petitioner is bringing on record the transfer orders pertaining to certain candidates who had either secured 5 points or 7 points and have still been granted the transfer while the petitioner has been denied the same even though petitioner stands on better footing as compared to such candidates. Copy of some of the orders in respect of the applicants who had secured 5 points and 7 points and who have been granted inter-district-transfer are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-17 to the present writ petition."
Leaned counsel for the appellant submits that it appears that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the aforesaid contention raised by the appellant on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that some other candidates had been extended the benefit of transfer, who had secured 5 and 7 points respectively was not noted which prejudiced the cause of the appellant. To support the submission, learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the documents filed as Annexure-17 to the said application bringing on record the transfer orders of such candidates, who are similarly situated, particularly with regard to the transfers made in the district of Muzaffar Nagar.
Prima facie this distinguishing feature does not appear to have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. So far as the other legal issues are concerned, we see no reason to take a different view from the judgment of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.870 of 2018 (Smt. Shikha Singh and 24 Others Versus State of U.P and 3 Others) decided on 04.10.2018 upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but so far as this specific case is concerned, as pleaded by the appellant the same does not appear to have been dealt with.
Accordingly, we direct that Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 may file a counter affidavit particularly with regard to the averments made by the appellant in paragraphs no.32 and 33 of the original petition within two weeks.
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018
Heard Sri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application.
The delay explained in the affidavit discloses sufficient cause. Delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
Appeal shall be given regular number.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 778 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sneh
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Singhal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Virendra Chaubey
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
Order on appeal
This appeal assails the order dated 13.08.2018 in the writ petition filed by the appellant pertaining to the relief prayed for namely that the application of the petitioner should be processed for transfer from Lakhimpur Kheri to Muzaffar Nagar. This is a matter of inter-district transfer of Assistant Teachers pursuant to Government Orders dated 13.6.2017, 20.09.2017 and 05.09.2018 read with the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.
A large number of writ petitions were filed pertaining to transfer in aspirational districts and this legal issue came to be decided by answering the three questions framed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13.08.2018 holding that Assistant Teachers, who are working in aspirational districts, have no right of inter-districts transfer. It is further held that in the matter of transfer, the Board has the authority to frame guidelines and such guidelines, if framed, do not violate the Rules.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the said bunch, the appellant's case was also listed and it has been dismissed applying the ratio of the judgment in the case of Smt. Ruchi versus State of U.P. and 2 others delivered on the same day.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that apart from the aforesaid legal issue, there was a specific case set up by the appellant in paragraph no. 32 and 33 to the following effect :
"32. That the entire exercise that has been undertaken by the respondents pertaining to the inter-district-transfer of the primary school teachers suffers from arbitrariness which is apparent from the face of the record inasmuch as the candidates who have secured 5 points have been granted inter-district-transfer.
33. That the petitioner is bringing on record the transfer orders pertaining to certain candidates who had either secured 5 points or 7 points and have still been granted the transfer while the petitioner has been denied the same even though petitioner stands on better footing as compared to such candidates. Copy of some of the orders in respect of the applicants who had secured 5 points and 7 points and who have been granted inter-district-transfer are being filed herewith collectively and marked as Annexure-17 to the present writ petition."
Leaned counsel for the appellant submits that it appears that at the time of disposal of the writ petition, the aforesaid contention raised by the appellant on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India that some other candidates had been extended the benefit of transfer, who had secured 5 and 7 points respectively was not noted which prejudiced the cause of the appellant. To support the submission, learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the Court to the documents filed as Annexure-17 to the said application bringing on record the transfer orders of such candidates, who are similarly situated, particularly with regard to the transfers made in the district of Muzaffar Nagar.
Prima facie this distinguishing feature does not appear to have been dealt with by the learned Single Judge. So far as the other legal issues are concerned, we see no reason to take a different view from the judgment of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.870 of 2018 (Smt. Shikha Singh and 24 Others Versus State of U.P and 3 Others) decided on 04.10.2018 upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge, but so far as this specific case is concerned, as pleaded by the appellant the same does not appear to have been dealt with.
Accordingly, we direct that Sri Virendra Chaubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 may file a counter affidavit particularly with regard to the averments made by the appellant in paragraphs no.32 and 33 of the original petition within two weeks.
List immediately thereafter.
Order Date :- 12.10.2018
ss
