बेसिक शिक्षकों के अवैध ट्रांसफर की दलील देकर ट्रांसफर करने की याचिका ख़ारिज , कोर्ट ने स्ट्रांग रीज़न ने होने की बात कही

बेसिक शिक्षकों के अवैध ट्रांसफर की दलील देकर ट्रांसफर करने की याचिका ख़ारिज , कोर्ट ने स्ट्रांग रीज़न ने होने की बात कही -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 7
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 1908 of 2017
Petitioner :- Smt. Anuranjani
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu. Civil Sectt.& Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel representing the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad and District Basic Education Officer, Siddhartha Nagar.
The petitioner, who is working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Siddhartha Nagar, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 which prescribes three years minimum service to be possessed to his/her credit by a teacher for being eligible to apply for inter-district transfer. The petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider her case for transfer from district Siddhartha Nagar to district Barabanki.
Service conditions of the Assistant Teachers working in the Primary Institutions which are run and managed by the Basic Education Board, Allahabad, which is a statutory body created under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, are governed by the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, Rule 21 whereof provides the procedure for transfer and clearly states that there shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area 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 request of or with the consent of the teacher and with the approval of the Board.
The State Government for the purpose of effecting inter-district transfers of the teachers working in the institutions run by the Basic Education Board issued a Government Order dated 23.06.2016 enunciating therein the transfer policy. Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is as follows:-
" 3-bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd m0 iz0 csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn }kjk lapkfyr fo|ky;ksa esa dk;Zjr v/;kidksa ds 'kkSf{kd l= 2016&17 gsrq vUrtZuinh; LFkkukUrj.k gsrq fuEuor~ uhfr fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%&
¼1½ vUrtuZinh; LFkkukUrj.k gsrq dsoy ogh v/;kid vgZ gksaxs] ftUgksaus dk;Zjr tuin esa izFke fu;qfDr frfFk ls fnukad 31 ekpZ] 2016 rd U;wure 03 o"kZ dh lsok iw.kZ dj yh gksA"
The aforesaid provision in the said Government Order dated 23.06.2016 states that only those teachers will be eligible for seeking inter-district transfer who have completed three years service from the date of their first appointment till 31.03.2016. The said stipulation of having completed three years service to seek inter-district transfer is a policy decision taken by the Government and is in fact referable to Section 13 of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, which provides that Basic Education Board shall carry out such directions as made to it from time to time by the State Government.
It is observed that any policy decision by the State Government can though be scrutinized by this court, however, the grounds of challenge are limited and for successful challenge to a policy decision the petitioner has to lay a strong foundation of violation of any statutory or constitutional provision.
From a perusal of entire averments made in the writ petition, it is clear that no such foundation has been laid by the petitioner to challenge Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016.
At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to strengthen the said submission, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government by means of order dated 03.01.2017 (annexure No.6 to the writ petition) has even effected inter-district transfers of several teachers including the trainee teachers who have not completed three years service and as such existence of such Clause 3(1) in the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, which is not being implemented by the State Government would dis-entitle the petitioner from making application seeking inter-district transfer and thus the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. In case any Government Policy of the Government embodied either in the Government Order or for that matter in some statutory prescriptions is not being adhered to, that in itself would not render the said policy to be bad in law, neither on the said ground can it be said that the policy itself is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to challenge the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 to the extent as aforesaid, that several teachers who had not put in three years service, have been considered for inter-district transfer and the State Government did not make it known to the petitioner that the transfers of those teachers are also being considered who have not put in three years service, hence, Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 having not been acted upon makes the same unlawful. The aforesaid submission being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is again highly mis-conceived. The purported action in terms of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016 may be bad or lawful, however, the same would depend on analysis of the facts of a particular case, but the same cannot be a ground to challenge the alleged offending clause of the Government Order itself.
Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has utterly failed to establish any tenable grounds to challenge Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, the prayer No.1 made by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be acceded to.
So far as the prayer No.2 made by the petitioner in this case is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 09.11.2015 and has not put in requisite period of service of three years as on 31.03.2016 as stipulated in Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, hence she is not eligible to apply seeking inter-district transfer. The prayer No.2 made by the petitioner in this writ petition, thus, also cannot be granted.
Lastly, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by means of order dated 03.01.2017, passed by the State Government, which has been annexed as Annexure No.6 to the writ petition, various teachers who have not put in three years service as on 31.03.2016 have been transferred out of district where they were initially appointed. Such transfers appear to be in contravention of Clause 3(1) of the Government Order dated 23.06.2016, however, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim any parity with an illegality. The said submission is also, thus, rejected.
For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.1.2017
Sanjay
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines