Allowed

Lokendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2019WRIA/16318/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court allowed a petition challenging an order rejecting a teacher's representation against transfer. The court set aside the impugned order for not considering objections and failing to provide reasons, directing a fresh decision within two months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of Basic Education Officer dated 18.09.2019 is set aside; the officer is directed to pass a fresh order within two months considering relevant rules.

Lokendra Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16318 of 2019 Petitioner :- Lokendra Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shatrughan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav

¶3

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents.

¶5

The petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Hadarpur Development Area, Haldaur, District Bijnor. The services of the petitioner are governed by the provisions of U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 and Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

¶6

It appears that under the Government Order dated 17.06.2019, the petitioner was transferred/adjusted in Purva Madymik Vidyalaya Tore Seda Development Block Aaku, District Bijnor by order dated 16.08.2019. The petitioner preferred Writ- A No. 13224 of 2019 (Pushpendra Kumar and 48 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others), which was disposed of by this Court giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Level Committee constituted under the provisions of Government Order dated 17.06.2019 headed by District Magistrate by filing representation. The petitioner in compliance of the order of this Court submitted representation on 27.08.2019 against his transfer/adjustment before the District Level Committee.

¶7

It transpires from the record that petitioner has stated in his representation that as per the strength of the student in the institution, the petitioner is not a surplus teacher in the institution. It is also stated in the representation that the District Magistrate has not notified the sanctioned strength of the teachers to the school nor has uploaded the same on the District Website as required under Rule 21 (1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2011'). Besides above objections, several other objections have been raised by the petitioner in his representation.

¶8

The Basic Education Officer, Bijnor has rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 18.09.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶9

Challenging the order of Basic Education Officer, Bijnor dated 18.09.2019, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has taken specific ground in his representation that as per the strength of student in the institution, the petitioner is not surplus teacher. He further submits that the petitioner has also stated in the representation that the District Magistrate is under obligation under Rule 21 of Rules, 2011 to upload the strength of the teacher in the institution on the District Website, but this has not been done. There was no record available with the District Level Committee about the sanctioned strength of the teacher in the institution in order to determine whether petitioner is a surplus teacher in the institution, and further the objection taken by the petitioner has not been considered by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order, and as such the impugned order is non-speaking and without application of mind.

¶10

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the specific objection taken by the petitioner has been considered and dealt with by the Basic Education Officer, Bijnor.

¶11

Since perusal of order impugned in the writ petition clearly reveals that the objection taken by the petitioner in his representation has not been considered by the Basic Education Officer, and no reason has been assigned for rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner in his representation, therefore, this Court finds that that the order of Basic Eduction Officer dated 18.09.2019 cannot be sustained for the reasons aforesaid and as such, the same is accordingly, set aside.

¶12

In the facts of the present case, the Basic Education Officer, Bijnor is directed to pass a fresh order after considering relevant rules as well as Government Orders strictly in accordance with law upon the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. For a period of two months or till the decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶13

It is also made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the claim of the petitioner on merit.

¶14

The writ petition is allowed , subject to the observations made above.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.12.2019/S.K.

Lokendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokendra Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajai Vishwakram Vs Union of India and Another

Smt. Yashoda Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sri Yad Ram Vs State of U.P. and Others

Kailash Vs Cantonment Board Jhansi Cantt. and Others

Som Kant Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Sumeria Vs State of U.P. and Others