Disposed

Manoj Kumar Jaisal and 2 Othres v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2018WRIA/6121/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding the refusal of mid-session transfer for teachers, the Court did not adjudicate merits but disposed of the matter by directing the Additional Director of Education to consider the grievance and pass an order after the academic session concludes.

What did the court decide?

Directing the third respondent to look into the grievance after completion of the academic session and pass an appropriate order within eight weeks.

Manoj Kumar Jaisal and 2 Othres Vs State of Up and… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6121 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Jaisal And 2 Othres Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui,Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anurag Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are assailing validity of order dated 27.10.2017 passed by the second respondent i.e. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. and the orders dated 11.12.2017, 13.11.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by the third respondent i.e. Addl. Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad by which the request of the petitioners for transfer has been refused under the garb of the order/direction dated 27.10.2017 issued by the Director of Education (Secondary) U.P by which the mid session transfer of Principal/ teachers has been prohibited.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners precisely submits that all the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are working as Lecturers and petitioner no.3 is working as Assistant Teacher in their respective colleges as has been averred in the writ petition in detail and all the institutions are recognized and aided and governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Payment of Salaries Act, 1921.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners has informed to the Court that petitioners have approached to the Authority concerned for consideration of their transfer and when no heed has been paid on their applications, they have approached to this Court by preferring separate writ petitions bearing Writ A no.49518/2017, Writ A no.53067/2017 and Writ A no.47225/2017, which were disposed of by this Court by orders dated 26.10.2017, 10.11.2017 and 10.10.2017, respectively. He further apprised to the Court that thereafter the order impugned dated 27.10.2017 has been passed by Director of Education (Secondary) rejecting the claim of petitioners for transfer on the ground that in mid session, no transfer of teachers can be made. The same has been followed by subsequent orders dated 13.11.2017, 11.12.2017 and 20.01.2018.

¶9

It is also contended that as per the provision contained in sub section (2) (c) of Section 16 (G) of Intermediate Education Act, 1921, by notification No.1542/17510 (62)/1985 dated 7.9.1995 of the government, the regulations have been made for transfer of the teachers from one institution to another and exhaustive procedure has been laid down under Regulations 55, 59, 60 and 61 of Chapter III of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as such, request has been made that the respondents may be directed to decide the claim of the petitioners for transfer as the session is going to be over on 31st March, 2018.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel very fairly submits that the grievance of the petitioners shall be considered by the third respondent at the earliest.

¶11

In regard thereto, without entering into the merits of the case, on consent, the writ petition is disposed of asking the third respondent, Additional Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P. Allahabad to look into grievance of the petitioners, after completion of academic session, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Order Date :- 22.3.2018 A. Pandey

Manoj Kumar Jaisal and 2 Othres v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Jaisal and 2 Othres v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramjee Singh and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Meenakshi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Vaibhav Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Ministry Basic Education Secretariat Lucknow and 9 Others

Abhilakh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Harish Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Omkar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others