HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 2
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 28772 of 2016
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Woman & Child Development & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manushresth Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Mr.Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Amrendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 21 November 2016 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development of the State Government, whereby the petitioner while posted at Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari at Balrampur has been transferred to Bulandshahar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's transfer is purely based on political dictate.� In support of his submission he has brought on record one letter dated 7 September 2016, written by the Hon'ble State Minister of Jantu Udyan Evam Chikitsa Swasthya, Prabhari Manti Lucknow/Ballia, even he is not concerned Minister of the Department, but he has recommended the petitioner's transfer being his activities against the political party. The Hon'ble Minister belongs to Samajwadi Party and he has observed petitioner's activities being against the policies of Samajwadi Party, therefore, he had recommended so. The other documents have been brought on record including one letter dated 16 November 2016 issued by the Director of the Department which has referred to the name of the complainant, in which the name of Dr.Shiv Pratap Yadav, Minister Jantu Udyan Evam Chikitsa Swasthya has been indicated, which establishes the connectivity of the petitioner's transfer with his dictate.
Therefore, obviously the facts stated above establish that the petitioner's transfer is based on political consideration. Hence it definitely requires interference by this court.
At this stage Mr.Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of this court towards paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, in which it has been stated that:-
"the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 and has undergone 17 years of service on the post of Child Development Project Officer. In this tenure of service, he has spent 16 years in Devi Patan Division itself and within the said Division, 7 years of posting in district Balrampur......."
Thus, it has been stated that the petitioner has enjoyed his service for seven years at Balrampur, whereas the transfer policy permits the posting of an employee for maximum 6 years in a district and ten years in a Division. Therefore, the political recommendation may not be the basis of transfer.
Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that certainly the order of transfer impugned being based on political dictate requires interference by this court. Therefore, we hereby quash it. Simultaneously by noticing the facts narrated in the counter affidavit, as above, we issue direction to the respondents to post the petitioner at somewhere else forthwith, which may be issued simultaneously even alongwith the order cancelling his transfer order dated 21 November 2016, pursuant to this order. Any how the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue at Balrampur further.
At the same time we would be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the recommendation of the Hon'ble State Minister to transfer the petitioner over which the State has acted upon without making any further inquiry of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, we hereby advise the Government for future not to repeat such an order based on political dictate without making any further inquiry in the matter and having been found any material therefor.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 3.3.2017
Banswar
(Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla,J.)
sponsored links:
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines
Court No. - 2
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 28772 of 2016
- SHIKSHAMITRA: अवशेष शिक्षा मित्रों को माननीय सुप्रीम कोर्ट मे त्वरित न्याय के लिए सुझाये गये ठोस रास्ते
- शिक्षामित्र विवाद : RTE एक्ट के बाद शिक्षामित्रों की बगैर टीईटी नियुक्ति सम्भव नहीं है अतः समायोजन होगा निरस्त, राहुल पांडेय की कलम से
- UP election 2017 : भाजपा लाओ उतर प्रदेश बचाओ
- बेसिक शिक्षकों को 7वें वेतन आयोग का लाभ नहीं दे रही अखिलेश सरकार: भाजपा
- बी. एड. टेट उत्तीर्ण भाईयों बहनो के बुरे दिन समाप्त होने में केवल 5 दिन बचे
- देखो शिक्षा मित्रों , गाजी इमाम आला का सफ़ेद झूठ और ऊपर से देश की महान न्यायपालिका डेट देके इनको बचाने का काम करती है
- कोर्ट की प्रभावी पैरवी के साथ-साथ राजनीतिक प्रयास भी अनवरत जारी : Mayank Tiwari टीम
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Woman & Child Development & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manushresth Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Mr.Ramesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Amrendra Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner has assailed the transfer order dated 21 November 2016 issued by the Special Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development of the State Government, whereby the petitioner while posted at Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari at Balrampur has been transferred to Bulandshahar.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's transfer is purely based on political dictate.� In support of his submission he has brought on record one letter dated 7 September 2016, written by the Hon'ble State Minister of Jantu Udyan Evam Chikitsa Swasthya, Prabhari Manti Lucknow/Ballia, even he is not concerned Minister of the Department, but he has recommended the petitioner's transfer being his activities against the political party. The Hon'ble Minister belongs to Samajwadi Party and he has observed petitioner's activities being against the policies of Samajwadi Party, therefore, he had recommended so. The other documents have been brought on record including one letter dated 16 November 2016 issued by the Director of the Department which has referred to the name of the complainant, in which the name of Dr.Shiv Pratap Yadav, Minister Jantu Udyan Evam Chikitsa Swasthya has been indicated, which establishes the connectivity of the petitioner's transfer with his dictate.
Therefore, obviously the facts stated above establish that the petitioner's transfer is based on political consideration. Hence it definitely requires interference by this court.
At this stage Mr.Bajpai, learned counsel for the respondents has invited the attention of this court towards paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents, in which it has been stated that:-
"the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 and has undergone 17 years of service on the post of Child Development Project Officer. In this tenure of service, he has spent 16 years in Devi Patan Division itself and within the said Division, 7 years of posting in district Balrampur......."
Thus, it has been stated that the petitioner has enjoyed his service for seven years at Balrampur, whereas the transfer policy permits the posting of an employee for maximum 6 years in a district and ten years in a Division. Therefore, the political recommendation may not be the basis of transfer.
Regard being had to the aforesaid submissions, we are of the view that certainly the order of transfer impugned being based on political dictate requires interference by this court. Therefore, we hereby quash it. Simultaneously by noticing the facts narrated in the counter affidavit, as above, we issue direction to the respondents to post the petitioner at somewhere else forthwith, which may be issued simultaneously even alongwith the order cancelling his transfer order dated 21 November 2016, pursuant to this order. Any how the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue at Balrampur further.
At the same time we would be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the recommendation of the Hon'ble State Minister to transfer the petitioner over which the State has acted upon without making any further inquiry of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, we hereby advise the Government for future not to repeat such an order based on political dictate without making any further inquiry in the matter and having been found any material therefor.
With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 3.3.2017
Banswar
(Sheo Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Shri Narayan Shukla,J.)
- मानव संसाधन विकाश राज्य मंत्री को निम्न बातो से अवगत कराया : चंदौली टेट मोर्चा टीम
- 22 feb को निकले आज 11 दिन हो गए , देखते हैं याची हित के लिए पहल कौन करता है???
- 7 अप्रैल : शिक्षामित्रों व शिक्षकों की नियुक्ति की सुनवाई पर अब कोई असमंजस नहीं
- Vote 2 ....BJP..... : पिछले सालों में उ.प्र. सरकार की रोजगार के क्षेत्र में उपलब्धियाँ
- 11/03/2017 के चुनावी नतीजों को देखने के पश्चात हम उत्तर प्रदेश में प्रदेश लेबल की प्रचंड मीटिंग
- UPTET शिक्षामित्र विवाद : उत्तर प्रदेश में शिक्षामित्रों के चयन हेतु प्रथम शासनादेश दिनांक 26.05.1999 को जारी हुआ था
- UPTET : केस एक या दो सुनबाई में लगभग फाइनल : टेट सयुक्त मोर्चा की मीटिंग
- UPTET केस आर्टिकल 142 : यही एक बात अचयनितों के जीवन को खुशगवार करने के लिए पर्याप्त
- ......तो मैं दावा करता हूँ हम सभी टेट 2011 उत्तीर्ण याची तीन माह के अंदर प्राथमिक विद्यालय में होंगे
- नौकरी की सुरक्षा के लिए इन मुद्दों पर ध्यान देना चाहिए..........
- Rochak Posts : आखिर पुरुष क्यों बनाना चाहते है शादीशुदा महिलाओं से सम्बन्ध
ख़बरें अब तक - 72825 प्रशिक्षु शिक्षकों की भर्ती - Today's Headlines