/* remove this */

Sunday, June 11, 2023

SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021 Chief Justice Bench Allahabad Highcourt जिसने शिक्षकों को एक से अधिक बार ट्रांसफर के आवेदन के लिए मोका दिया

  SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021 Chief Justice Bench Allahabad Highcourt जिसने शिक्षकों को एक से अधिक बार ट्रांसफर के आवेदन के लिए मोका दिया


COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD


Neutral Citation No. - 2021:AHC:63803-DB

?Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 419 of 2021

Appellant :- Ajay Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Agarwal,Jai Krishna Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the State, Shri Chandan Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent no. 6, Shri Jai Krishna Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 and Shri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 03.11.2020.� An application to seek leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant because his rights are affected by the judgement.�
The application to seek leave to appeal is allowed, as being not opposed by the petitioner/non-appellant so as the State Government and otherwise, we find that the appellant is affected by the outcome of the judgement under challenge.
The writ petition filed by the petitioners has been decided after detailed discussion of the issues.� The learned Single Judge, thereupon, gave following directions for its general application:-
"64. Since in this judgment I have already held Clauses 2(1)(A),(B) of the Government order dated 2nd December, 2019 to be contrary and in conflict with the statutory rules contained under the posting Rules, 2008 and clause 16 to be contradictory to the clause 15 of the Government order and also defeating the very objective sought to be achieved under the posting rules, 2008 in the light of the objectives set forth under the Right to Free Education for all Act, 2009 and Clause 15 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 be read down in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment for female candidates as they may be specially circumstanced, I come to conclude with following observations/ directions to be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-
(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.
(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.
(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.
(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.
(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.
(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).
(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.
(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."
The only question raised before us is with regard to denial of second application for inter-district transfer.� The learned Single Judge has restricted the number of application to seek inter-district transfer.� It has been directed that after one application, the employee would not be entitled to move second application for his inter-district transfer; other than, in the exceptional circumstances carved out by the learned Single Judge.� The direction, aforesaid, is said to be in violation of Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules of 1981') and Rule 8 of the U.P. Teachers Posting Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called as, 'the Rules of 2008'). Both the Rules are quoted herein-below for a ready reference:-
"Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981: Procedure for Transfer- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board shall be necessary.
Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008: Posting - (1) (a) Three options for schools shall be asked from the handicapped candidates in order of their merit and after receiving such option the handicapped candidates shall be posted on the basis of option given by them and the vacancies.
(b) Based on the order of their merit, female teachers would be required to submit under their signature option of three schools each from the general and backward block and accordingly, posting would be given in one of these schools.
(c) The posting of male teachers shall be made in accordance with the order of candidates in the roster prepared under Rule 7.
(2)(a) The newly appointed male teachers shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward areas for a period of at least five years.
(b) Newly appointed female teachers shall also be compulsorily posted in backward area for a period of at least two years.
(c) Mutual transfers within the district from general block and backward block and vice-versa would be permitted with the condition that the teacher on mutual transfer to a backward block shall have to serve in that block compulsorily for five years. Mutual transfers would be permitted only in case of those teachers who have more than remaining five year's service.
(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district.
(e) If by virtue of posting of newly appointed or promoted teachers the primary and upper primary schools of backward blocks get saturated i.e. no post of teacher is vacant in these schools, then handicapped and female teachers on their choice can be adjusted against the vacant posts of general blocks from these saturated blocks.
(f) Mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered.
(3) Teachers transferred from one district to another will be given posting as per the provision of these rules."
Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981, quoted above, imposes a bar on transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district, except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher.
The transfer from one district to another has not been permitted as a course, but can be made on the request or with the consent of the teacher.� Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 also provides that in normal circumstances, the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting, but under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district.� Both the rules do not preclude number of applications for seeking inter-district transfers.
In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to bar second application for inter-district transfer.� The transfer of teachers, otherwise, remains in the domain of the State Government and thereby, mere submission of the application does not create any right in favour of the employee to seek transfer.� It remains at the discretion of the Government.� If a teacher gives one application for inter-district transfer and is accepted, the Rule does not bar further transfer by making an application.� It is more so, when, on seeking inter-district transfer, one loses his seniority.� He/she is placed at the bottom of the seniority of the district he/she is transferred.�
The restraint imposed by the learned Single Judge on second application for inter-district transfer is de hors the Rules.�
The counsel for the petitioner has supported the appeal. He submits that there was no prayer in the writ petition to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer after first application has been accepted or rejected; rather, the Government Order, imposing prohibition to make second application for inter-district transfer, was challenged. It was for the reason that the condition imposed by the administrative order was de hors the Rules.� When the Rules do not prohibit second application, it could not have been imposed by an administrative order.�
The prayer is, accordingly, to modify the judgement of the learned Single Judge by accepting the appeal.
The counsel appearing for the State has, initially, opposed the appeal, but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.� In a case where the first application for inter-district transfer is accepted and one is transferred to another district, the Rules do not cast a bar on another application later on to seek inter-district transfer.� It is specially when making an application does not create a right of transfer. The transfer, otherwise, affects the employee in order of seniority. The learned Standing Counsel is fair enough to accept that there is no bar under the Rules to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.�
In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules.� To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government.� It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred. �
With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.�
If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
Amit Mishra
Read more...

Writ 3633 of 2021, जिसमे कोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को आदेशित किया को सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर के लिए आवेदन नियमों का उल्लंघन है, और शिक्षक ट्रांसफर की लिए दोबारा आवेदन के पात्र हो गए

Writ 3633 of 2021, जिसमे कोर्ट ने बेसिक शिक्षा विभाग को आदेशित किया को सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर के लिए आवेदन नियमों का उल्लंघन है, और शिक्षक ट्रांसफर की लिए दोबारा आवेदन के पात्र हो गए


 Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3633 of 2021

Petitioner :- Anuradha

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

This petition is directed against the order dated 06th February,
2021, whereby petitioner's relieving pursuant to the order of
voluntary transfer has been declined on the ground that second

transfer was impermissible in terms of the Government Order
dated 02.12.2019.

Whether or not more than one transfer would be permissible is
an issue which came up for consideration before a Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 419 of
2021, in which the Division Bench has been pleased to observe
as under:-

"In view of the above, we find that the Government Order,
imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is
not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory
Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and
causing interference in the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district
transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of
application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it
would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is
furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district
transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the
seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.

With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the
Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single
Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as
Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at
liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it
would not be restricted to only one application in his service
tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an
application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it
would remain at the discretion of the Government.

If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the
judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the
remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.”

Smt. Archana Singh for the respondent states that the authority be
permitted to revisit the matter in light of aforesaid judgment.

In view of the what has been observed above, the relieving
cannot be declined merely on the ground that the second
transfer is impermissible. Consequently, the order passed by the
District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur dated 06.02.2021
cannot be sustained and is quashed.

The authority concerned shall revisit the issue in light of the
observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated
05.07.2021 extracted above. Such consideration would be made
within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of a
copy of this order.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 4.8.2021
Pkb/
Read more...

Friday, June 9, 2023

Second chance for transfer Given by Court for Basic Teacher UP / कुछ खास कोर्ट के आदेश जिनके आधार पर दूसरी बार शिक्षकों को ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका

 Second chance for transfer Given by Court for Basic Teacher UP / कुछ खास कोर्ट के आदेश जिनके आधार पर दूसरी बार शिक्षकों को ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका 


Writ 3633 of 2021 के आदेश के संदर्भ में नीचे दिए गए कोर्ट आदेश में कहा गया की बेसिक शिक्षक को दोबारा ट्रांसफर आवेदन का मोका मिलेगा 

Anuradha vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 16 February, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 25						                 Reserved
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10811 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Anuradha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Arun Kumar,Sanjay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present petition is filed with the following prayer:-

a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj/respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.09.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/Respondent No.4.

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 to relieve the petitioner from District Gorakhpur.

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to join in district Barabanki on the post of Head Mistress in Primary School run by Basic Education Board as per her transfer order dated 31.12.2020 and relieving order dated 31.08.2021.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bhasiya Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar, vide appointment letter dated 24.12.2005, and thereafter, she was promoted on the post of Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School on 23.01.2010 and she joined in Upper Primary School, Daridiha, Block-Semriyaya, District-Sant Kabir Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the request of the petitioner, she was transferred from Santkabir Nagar to Gorakhpur, and thereafter, order was passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/respondent No.4 on 04.10.2023 and petitioner was allowed to join in Upper Primary School on 05.10.2012. Later on, petitioner was directed to join as Head Mistress in Primary School, Ayodhyachak, Block Sardarnagar, District Gorakhpur and she joined on 16.01.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the petitioner was working on the post of Messenger in U.P. Police Telecom Department in District Barabanki and he was fallen ill due to chronic liver failure and his treatment was going on in SGPGI, Lucknow. Thereafter, she requested for inter district transfer and opted District Lucknow or near by place, which was considered in accordance with provision of U.P. Basic Education (Teacher Posting Rules, 2008) and transferred to District Barabanki, but respondent No.4 denied to relieve her, then she filed Writ Petition No.3633 of 2021, which was allowed by quashing the order of respondent No.4, dated 06.02.2021 and concerned authority was directed to revisit the issue. In compliance of the order dated 04.08.2021, fresh representation was moved before the respondent No.4, who passed the relieving order on 31.08.2021 and petitioner relieved to join District Barabanki and she approached to respondent No.5 (District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki) and requested for her joining by way of written application, dated 06.09.2021. Thereafter, letter dated 09.09.2021 was written by the respondent No.5 to respondent No.2 and asked necessary instructions in relation to joining of the petitioner in District Barabanki. In the meantime, respondent No.4 (District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur) recalled the relieving order of the petitioner, dated 03.09.2021 and directed to join her services in her earlier school in District Gorakhpur. Again, petitioner approached before this Court by filing Contempt Application Civil No.5695 of 2021. In the meantime, order dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 have been passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj as well as District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier, District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur had passed the order dated 06.02.2021 on the ground that second request for inter district transfer was not permissible, but the order dated 06.02.2021 was set aside by this Court in Writ-A No.3633 of 2021 and District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur was directed to revisit the order, and thereafter, he passed the relieving order. Later on, her relieving order was recalled and impugned order has been passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj with the observation that illness of the husband of petitioner does not come in the category mentioned in the Government Order, dated 02.12.2019, therefore, her application was rejected. He further submitted that impugned order passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj does not releval that under what circumstances, she was transferred to Barabanki, therefore, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submitted that ailment of the husband of the petitioner does not come in the category, which is mentioned in the Government Order as liver cirrhosis does not cover in the definition of liver failure, therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of petition as well as impugned order, as it is undisputed fact that second application of petitioner for inter district transfer is not barred and respondents/authorities are the custodian of the record and when the petitioner submitted her application for transfer from Gorakhpur to Lucknow or near by place, 39 quality points were given to her, and thereafter, she was transferred to District Barabanki and District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur denied her relieving, vide order dated 06.02.2021 on the ground that second request for inter district transfer is not admissible. The order dated 06.02.2021 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ-A No.3633 of 2021, which was allowed and order dated 06.02.2021 was set aside with the direction to revisit the order. Thereafter, petitioner was relieved by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur on 31.08.2021. The relevant part of the relieving order dated 31.08.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur reads as under:-

" निर्णय उपर्युुक्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थियों एवं मा० उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद में योजित याचिका सं०-3633/2021 पारित आदेश दिनांक 04.08.2021 में याची का प्रत्यावेदन स्वीकार किया जाता है तथा उक्त याचिका में अंकित स्पेशल अपील डिफेक्टिव नं०-419/2021 में डिवीजन बेंच द्वारा दिये गये आदेश को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए याची अनुराधा प्र०अ०, प्रा०वि० अयोध्याचक, सरदारनगर, गोरखपुर के कार्यमुक्ति पर पुर्नविचार करते हुए इस कार्यालय से निर्गत आदेश पत्रांक मान्यता/17204-06/2020-21 दिनांक 06 फरवरी 2021 को निरस्त करते हुए स्थानान्तरित जनपद बाराबंकी हेतु कार्यमुक्त किया जाता है। "

9. Thereafter, petitioner was relieved and given her joining in the Office of District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki on 06.09.2021, but in place of allowing her, Mr. Ajai Kumar Singh, the then District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki sought guidelines from District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, and thereafter, impugned order has been passed. As in the impugned order, it is not denied that petitioner was given 39 quality points on her application for transfer.

10. It is also evident from the record that the husband of the petitioner was suffering from liver cirrhosis, therefore, writ petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 24.01.2022 and 18.02.2022 passed by Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj/respondent No.2 as well as order dated 13.09.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur/Respondent No.4 are hereby set aside.

11. District Basic Education Officer, Barabanki is directed to allow the petitioner to resume the charge in pursuance of the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Gorakhpur, forthwith.

Order Date :- 16.02.2023 Amit/-

Read more...

अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण : 20 दिन के अंदर ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही होगी पूरी , आवेदन करने का डायरेक्ट लिंक UP BASIC TEACHER TRANSFER

 

अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण : 20 दिन के अंदर ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही होगी पूरी , आवेदन करने का डायरेक्ट लिंक UP BASIC TEACHER TRANSFER



➡ _अन्तर्जनपदीय स्थानान्तरण की समस्त कार्यवाही राष्ट्रीय सूचना विज्ञान केन्द्र उ0प्र0 लखनऊ द्वारा विकसित पोर्टल👉  interdistricttransfer.upsdc.gov.in के माध्यम से सम्पादित की जायेगी।

_*अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानांतरण कार्यक्रम की समय सारणी*_

➡ _1-पोर्टल पर आवेदन 9 से 14 जून_

➡ _2-बीएसए द्वारा सत्यापन व डेटा लाक कार्यवाही 10 से 18 जून_

➡ _3-एनआईसी द्वारा ट्रांसफर की कार्यवाही 19 जून से 22 जून_

➡ _4-ट्रांसफर के पश्चात कार्यमुक्ति 27 जून से_

Read more...

Saturday, February 25, 2023

चीफ जस्टिस बेंच: शिक्षक अंतर् जनपदीय ट्रांसफर के लिए कई बार आवेदन कर सकते हैं

चीफ जस्टिस बेंच: शिक्षक अंतर् जनपदीय ट्रांसफर के लिए कई बार आवेदन कर सकते हैं 

 चीफ जस्टिस बेंच ने महिला शिक्षकों की सिर्फ एक बार ट्रांसफर आवेदन देने के मोके को गलत माना, कहा की सिंगल  बेंच से गलती हुई, ट्रांसफर नियमावली 1981 और 2008 में कहीं भी सिर्फ एक बार मौका देने को नहीं लिखा , और कहा की हमें शासनादेश में हस्तक्षेप करना पड़ रहा है  के ट्रांसफर आवेदन में सिर्फ एक बार मौका देने को बाध्य नहीं किया जा सकता , और आगे भी आवेदन कर सकता है 



Court - but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.

 Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rulesrather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. 

we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. 



Allahabad High Court
Shobha Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Ajai Tyagi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 466 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- Shobha Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi,J.

In Re: Exemption Application Exemption application is allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 03.11.2020, passed by this Court.

In Re: Special Appeal Heard Shri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 03.11.2020. An application to seek leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant because his rights are affected by the judgement.

The application to seek leave to appeal is allowed, as being not opposed by the petitioner/non-appellant so as the State Government and otherwise, we find that the appellant is affected by the outcome of the judgement under challenge.

The writ petition filed by the petitioners has been decided after detailed discussion of the issues. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, gave following directions for its general application:-

"64. Since in this judgment I have already held Clauses 2(1)(A),(B) of the Government order dated 2nd December, 2019 to be contrary and in conflict with the statutory rules contained under the posting Rules, 2008 and clause 16 to be contradictory to the clause 15 of the Government order and also defeating the very objective sought to be achieved under the posting rules, 2008 in the light of the objectives set forth under the Right to Free Education for all Act, 2009 and Clause 15 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 be read down in the light of the observations made earlier in this judgment for female candidates as they may be specially circumstanced, I come to conclude with following observations/ directions to be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-

(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.

(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.

(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.

(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.

(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.

(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).

(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.

(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."

The only question raised before us is with regard to denial of second application for inter-district transfer. The learned Single Judge has restricted the number of application to seek inter-district transfer. It has been directed that after one application, the employee would not be entitled to move second application for his inter-district transfer; other than, in the exceptional circumstances carved out by the learned Single Judge. The direction, aforesaid, is said to be in violation of Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules of 1981') and Rule 8 of the U.P. Teachers Posting Rules, 2008 (hereinafter called as, 'the Rules of 2008'). Both the Rules are quoted herein-below for a ready reference:-

"Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981: Procedure for Transfer- There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board shall be necessary.

Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008: Posting - (1) (a) Three options for schools shall be asked from the handicapped candidates in order of their merit and after receiving such option the handicapped candidates shall be posted on the basis of option given by them and the vacancies.

(b) Based on the order of their merit, female teachers would be required to submit under their signature option of three schools each from the general and backward block and accordingly, posting would be given in one of these schools.

(c) The posting of male teachers shall be made in accordance with the order of candidates in the roster prepared under Rule 7.

(2)(a) The newly appointed male teachers shall initially be posted compulsorily in backward areas for a period of at least five years.

(b) Newly appointed female teachers shall also be compulsorily posted in backward area for a period of at least two years.

(c) Mutual transfers within the district from general block and backward block and vice-versa would be permitted with the condition that the teacher on mutual transfer to a backward block shall have to serve in that block compulsorily for five years. Mutual transfers would be permitted only in case of those teachers who have more than remaining five year's service.

(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district.

(e) If by virtue of posting of newly appointed or promoted teachers the primary and upper primary schools of backward blocks get saturated i.e. no post of teacher is vacant in these schools, then handicapped and female teachers on their choice can be adjusted against the vacant posts of general blocks from these saturated blocks.

(f) Mutual transfers of male/female teachers from one backward blocks to another can be considered.

(3) Teachers transferred from one district to another will be given posting as per the provision of these rules."

Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981, quoted above, imposes a bar on transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice-versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district, except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher.

The transfer from one district to another has not been permitted as a course, but can be made on the request or with the consent of the teacher. Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 also provides that in normal circumstances, the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting, but under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district. Both the rules do not preclude number of applications for seeking inter-district transfers.

In view of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to bar second application for inter-district transfer. The transfer of teachers, otherwise, remains in the domain of the State Government and thereby, mere submission of the application does not create any right in favour of the employee to seek transfer. It remains at the discretion of the Government. If a teacher gives one application for inter-district transfer and is accepted, the Rule does not bar further transfer by making an application. It is more so, when, on seeking inter-district transfer, one loses his seniority. He/she is placed at the bottom of the seniority of the district he/she is transferred.

The restraint imposed by the learned Single Judge on second application for inter-district transfer is de hors the Rules.

The counsel for the petitioner has supported the appeal. He submits that there was no prayer in the writ petition to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer after first application has been accepted or rejected; rather, the Government Order, imposing prohibition to make second application for inter-district transfer, was challenged. It was for the reason that the condition imposed by the administrative order was de hors the Rules. When the Rules do not prohibit second application, it could not have been imposed by an administrative order.

The prayer is, accordingly, to modify the judgement of the learned Single Judge by accepting the appeal.

The counsel appearing for the State has, initially, opposed the appeal, but could not show any provision to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer. In a case where the first application for inter-district transfer is accepted and one is transferred to another district, the Rules do not cast a bar on another application later on to seek inter-district transfer. It is specially when making an application does not create a right of transfer. The transfer, otherwise, affects the employee in order of seniority. The learned Standing Counsel is fair enough to accept that there is no bar under the Rules to prohibit second application for inter-district transfer.

In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.

With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.

If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.

The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid.

Order Date :- 15.7.2021 LN Tripathi    


Read more...

कोर्ट ने एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से महिला शिक्षकों की विशिष्ट परिस्थिति को जाँच ट्रांसफर का मौका देने को कहा गया

 कोर्ट ने एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से महिला शिक्षकों की विशिष्ट परिस्थिति को जाँच ट्रांसफर का मौका देने को कहा गया 


Allahabad High Court
Manju Pal vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 23 November, 2022
Bench: Ashutosh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
AFR
 

 
Judgment Reserved on : 14.09.2022
 
Judgment Delivered on: 23.11.2022
 

 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17977 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Manju Pal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Lakshmi Kant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6262 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Alka Malik
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Jai Krishna Tiwari
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5961 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Pooja Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13587 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Heena Parveen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Daya Ram
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13798 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Nazneem Fatima
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13900 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Deepshiksha Kesharwani
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Arun Kumar
 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3203 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Deepti Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar Sharma,Jai Krishna Tiwari,Navin Kumar Sharma,A/N0128,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13909 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Dipali Vishnoi
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16268 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Neeraj Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16307 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Mahe Anjum
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Ganesh Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
 

 
With
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14492 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Manju Lata And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Ram Bilas Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. All the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ Petition (A) No.17977 of 2021 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.

2. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos.2 & 4 as also learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents.

3. The writ petition (Writ-A No.17977 of 2021) has been filed assailing the order dated 31.12.2020 downloaded from the website of the U.P. Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for Inter-District Transfer from Bahraich to Bareilly, has been rejected on the ground that the transfer sought was an aspirational district transfer and not permitted under the Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in District Bahraich vide order dated 31.12.2015 and joined her services on 01.01.2016. In the year 2019 the petitioner was placed in Primary School Ahiraura, Block Chhitaura, District Bahraich under placement order dated 05.12.2019 and joined the said institution on 16.12.2019. The husband of the petitioner is running a business in District Bareilly. The petitioner has two children, 11 years old and 3 years old and both are residing at Bareilly along with their father and grandparents. The petitioner herself is a cancer patient whose treatment is going on at Kishlata Cancer Hospital, Bareilly. The petitioner is stated to be on medical leave and undergoing chemotherapy at Bareilly. The cancer has also affected the lungs of the petitioner and she is also undergoing treatment for her lung ailment at Yashoda Cancer Institute at Ghaziabad. Relevant documents have been filed on record to establish that the petitioner is a cancer patient and is undergoing treatment. The petitioner has sought Inter-District Transfer on medical grounds considering her ailment to District Bareilly from District Bahraich her present place of posting.

5. It is contended that the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19 (1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules provides for Inter-District Transfer. Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 also relates to transfer of the teachers. The State Government has issued a Government Order dated 02.12.2019 laying down the policy for the year 2019-20 for Inter-District Transfer. Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 imposes restriction upon the teachers appointed in the aspirational districts like Siddharth Nagar, Shravasti, Bahraich, Sonebhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019 is being reproduced here under:-

"13. आकांक्षी (Aspirational) जनपदों यथा-सिद्धार्थनगर, श्रावस्ती, बहराइच, सोनभद्र, चन्दौली, फतेहपुर, चित्रकूट एवं बलरामपुर में से प्रत्येक जनपद से उतने ही अध्यापकों को अन्यत्र जनपदों में स्थानान्तरित किया जायेगा, जितने अध्यापकों द्वारा अन्य जनपदों से सम्बन्धित आकांक्षी जनपद में आने के लिए स्थानान्तरण हेतु अनुरोध किया जायेगा। परन्तु, यह प्रावधान भारतीय सेना/वायु सेना/नौ सेना/अर्ध सैनिक बलों यथा, CRPF/ CISF/ SSB/ASSAM RIFLES/ITBP/NSG/BSF, से सम्बन्धित प्रकरणों पर लागू नही होगा। "

6. The Government Order dated 02.12.2019 came to be challenged in a bunch of writ petitions leading amongst them being Writ (A) No.878 of 2020 (Divya Goswami Vs. State of U.P. and others). The writ petition was finally decided vide order dated 03.11.2020. The Court concluded that the following observations/directions be necessarily kept in mind before finalizing the list of teachers seeking inter-district transfer:-

"(I) No inter district transfer shall be done in the mid of the academic session.

(II) Transfer application should be entertained strictly in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b) and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.

(III) Once a teacher has successfully exercised the option for inter district transfer, no second opportunity shall be afforded to any teacher of any category except in case of female teacher who has already availed benefit of inter district transfer on the ground of parents dependency, prior to her marriage. However, in case if the marriage has taken place then she will have only one opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer either on the ground of parents dependency or spouse residence/ in-laws residence.

(IV) In case of grave medical emergency for any incurable or serious disease that may as of necessity, require immediate medical help and sustained medical treatment, either personally or for the spouse, a second time opportunity to apply for inter district transfer should be afforded to such a teacher even if he/she had exercised such option for inter district transfer for any other reason in the past.

(V) Application of differently abled person should have very sympathetic consideration looking to physical disability but they should also have only one time opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer. In case of female teachers, such exception would apply, as referable to rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.

(VI) In case of female teacher's right to seek transfer, relaxation given under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule 8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be subject to rule 8(2) (b).

(VII) Save as observed and directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV and V), no second opportunity to exercise option for inter district transfer be made available to any candidate of any category whatsoever.

(VIII) The exercise of inter-district transfer since is exception to the general rule of appointment and posting, every application for transfer has to be addressed to by the competent authority keeping in mind the objectives set forth under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules, 2008 as amended in the year 2010 and must be acceded to citing a special circumstance specific to the case considered."

7. The order dated 03.11.2020 was modified by the Court vide order dated 03.12.2020 to the extent that and the Direction No.1 in the order dated 03.11.2020 would not be pressed in the cases of medical emergency thus permitting transfers in mid academic session. The medical emergency cases were required to be dealt with by the Government strictly in accordance with its own guidelines and the prescribed procedure to identify such cases which were to be religiously followed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (supra) the State Government issued Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020. Both the Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and the circular did not contain any restriction with regard to aspirational districts. He submits that Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 provided that from the aspirational districts only such number of teachers would be transferred as the number of requests for transfer from other districts to the said districts are received. The Government Order dated 02.12.2019 having been struck down by this Court and the State Government having issued the Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020 which did not provide anything about the aspirational districts, the inter-district transfer request of the petitioner was required to be considered positively and was not liable to be rejected. Reliance is also placed upon a Government Order dated 29.03.2018 which provides in Clause II(vii) that transfers out of aspirational districts could be considered after two years of the posting by accepting options. Reliance is also placed upon information received under the Right to Information Act from Government of India, Niti Ayog, New Delhi obtained on 18.01.2021 to demonstrate that now no restrictions have been imposed by the Central Government as regards Inter District Transfers of Teachers and the same is within the domain of the State Government. It is thus contended that in the absence of any restrictions imposed by subsequent Government Orders regarding Inter-District Transfers the request of transfer of the petitioner is liable to be considered under Rule 8 of the Rules, 2008 and Rule 21 of the 1981 Rules.

9. Per contra, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has resisted by the writ petition by filing counter affidavit sworn by the Block Education Officer District Bahraich and submits that the entire proceedings of Inter-District Transfer of teachers working in Institutions run by the Basic Education Board is done through a software developed by NIC in accordance with the provisions contained in the Government Order issued by the Basic Education Department. For the Academic Session 2019-20, a transfer policy was framed vide Government Order dated 02.12.2019. Clause 13 of the Government Order imposes restriction upon Inter-District Transfers and provides that from the districts Siddharth Nagar, Shravasti, Bahraich, Sonebhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur only such number of teachers would be transferred as the number of requests for transfer from other districts to the said districts are received. The validity of the said clause has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ (A) No.9177 of 2021 (Aradhana and another vs. State of U.P. & 5 others) decided on 05.08.2021. Clause 8 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 provides for fixation of preferential points and the transfer requests shall be entertained on the basis of the preferential points obtained by each candidate seeking transfer.

10. It is next contended by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the writ petitioner in her online application (Registration No.50374966) opted for being transferred to district Bareilly, Pilibhit and Budaun. The petitioner has been awarded 4 marks for tenure of service, 10 marks for serious disease of self, 5 marks for being female teacher, total marks 19 but her case has not been considered on account of transfer being sought from aspirational districts as the same has been restricted by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019. The petitioner, admittedly, does not fall under any of the exempted categories under the said Clause. It is submitted that the claim of transfer from aspirational districts has been laid to rest by a decision this Court dated 13.8.2018 passed in Writ (A) No.14395 of 2018 (Smt. Ruchi vs. State of U.P. and others) and 126 connected writ petitions by holding that the writ petitioners working in aspirational districts have no right for Inter District Transfer. Petitioner does not have any legally protected or judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus for transfer from the aspirational district. Therefore her application for Inter-District Transfer have been lawfully rejected in view of the decision of the Board.

11. It is further submitted that the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School is a district level cadre and Inter-District Transfer is an exceptional measure not to be made routinely except in terms of Rule 21 of the 1981 Rules. It is thus submitted that the writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has refuted the averments made in the counter affidavit by filing rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted that the respondents have been adopting pick and choose policy in affecting the inter-district transfers. At one instance the genuine transfer request of the petitioner has been denied on the ground that the transfer is being sought from an aspirational district and on the other hand several transfers have been affected from aspirational districts of Bahraich to Hapur, Bahraich to Lakhimpur Kheri, Bahraich to Unnao, Bahraich to Barabanki. Documents to substantiate the plea have been filed as Annexures RA-1 to RA-6. It is further contended that the case of the writ petitioner is liable to be considered in the light of the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra).

13. Having heard the respective learned counsels for the parties and having perused the record, the Court finds that the case of the writ petitioner has not be considered only on the ground that the transfer is being sought from an aspirational district and such transfers from aspirational districts have been not permitted by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

14. The Court further finds that the aspirational districts programme was launched by the Prime Minister in January, 2018 which aimed to quickly and effectively transform 112 most under developed districts across the country. The broad contours of the programme are convergence (of Central, State Schemes) Collaboration (of Central, State Level Nodal Officers & District Collectors) and competition among districts through monthly delta ranking; all driven by a mass movement. This programme focuses on the strength of each district, identifying low handing fruits for immediate improvement and measuring progress by ranking districts on a monthly basis. The ranking is based on the incremental progress made across 49 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) under 5 Broad Socio-Economic Themes i.e. Health and Nutrition, Education, Agriculture & Water Resources, Financial Inclusion & Skill Development and Infrastructure.

15. The Court further finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issues of Inter-District Transfers as also the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 laying down the Transfer Policy for 2019-20 in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra) deliberately did not deal with the Inter-District Transfers from aspirational districts and to the restrictions imposed by Clause 13 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 presumably on the ground that the issue of transfer from aspirational districts stood decided by the decisions rendered in Writ (A) No.9177 of 2021 (Aradhana and another Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others) as also Writ (A) No.14395 of 2018 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. State of U.P. & others) and 126 connected writ petitions holding that candidates working in aspirational districts have no right to seek transfer from aspirational districts. However, the Transfer Policy evolved subsequent to the decision of this Court in the case of Divya Goswami (Supra) vide Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and Circular dated 17.12.2020 do not impose any restriction for Inter-District Transfer from aspirational districts. In the opinion of the Court, the request of the petitioner for transfer from District Bahraich to District Bareilly is required to be sympathetically considered in the light of the provisions of the U.P. Basic Education Teachers (Posting) Rules 2008, read with Rule 21 of the Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 as also any policy framed by the State Government for Inter-District Transfer. Admittedly, no policy for effecting Inter-District Transfer is in vogue currently.

16. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Institution is a Member of District Level Cadre, which has been allotted to her after considering the preference of the teachers concerned. Being a Member of of District Level Cadre, the petitioner is required to remain posted within the cadre and transfer beyond the cadre/outside the district is ordinarily not concerned under the Rules. A transfer outside the district can be considered in normal circumstances only in accordance with the Rules. Rule 8(2)(d) of the Posting Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances the applications for Inter-District Transfer of Female Teachers will not the entertained before 5 years of completing their posting. However, the Rule contemplates that in exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances an application for transfer can be considered by the Basic Education Board/Director (Basic Education) even before the expiry of such term. The question whether in a given case the exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances exists or not has to be examined by the Basic Education Board/Director (Basic Education).

17. In such circumstance, the writ petition stands disposed of by permitting the petitioner to represent the matter before the Director, Basic Education, U.P., annexing all the materials in support of her plea that there exists exceptional circumstances justifying her transfer from district Bahraich to district Bareilly along with certified copy of the order of this Court within two weeks from today.

18. In the eventuality of such a representation being filed within the time allowed, it is expected that the Director, Basic Education, U.P., shall examine as to whether the ground on which the petitioner is seeking her transfer would fall within the exceptional circumstances or not and pass a reasoned and speaking order within further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation of the petitioner along with certified copy of this order.

19. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations/ directions.

Order Date :- 23.11.2022 pks (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) 


Read more...