/* 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

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/

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/-

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_