Dismissed

Girija Shankar Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC29 Nov 2019WRIA/18386/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer/adjustment of assistant teachers to different schools. Following a sister judgment, the Court held that the transfer was lawful, consistent with the State's policy and statutory obligations to ensure adequate teacher-student ratios, and found no established prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer to quash the transfer orders and restrain the respondents from shifting the petitioner was denied.

Girija Shankar Ram Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18386 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Girija Shankar Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jamil Ahamad Azmi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:-

¶8

“(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.8.2019 (Annexure6) issued by respondent no.4 so far it relates to petitioner only, as well as order dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no.5 so far it relates to petitioner only.

¶9

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent no.4 from shifting the petitioners by way of adjustment/samayojan from present place of posting to other school.”

¶10

A similar WRIT - A No. - 18346 of 2019 (Manish Sharma And 10 Others Vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others) decided on 28.11.2019 has been dismissed by this Court. The order dated 28.11.2019 in the case of Manish Sharma (supra) is reproduced

¶11

below:-

¶12

“1. Heard Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shyam Sundar, learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shashi Kant Verma, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶13

Facts:

¶14

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

¶15

“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.7.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 6 of the writ petition) passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sonbhadra i.e. respondent no. 4 adjusting / transferring the petitioners treating them to be surplus.

¶16

¶17

(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.11.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 8 of the writ petition) by which the representation has been rejected by the District Level Committee, adjusting / transferring the petitioners treating them to be surplus.

¶18

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioners working as Assistant Teacher / Head Teacher.”

¶19

By the impugned order dated 6.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3, the representation of the petitioners against their adjustment / transferred to some other schools, has been rejected.

¶20

Submissions:

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several writ petitions are pending before this Court involving similar controversy and a copy of order dated 25.7.2019 passed in one such writ petition being Writ-A No. 11283 of 2019 (Smt. Kamla Sipal & 40 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the same interim relief. The aforesaid interim order dated 25.7.2019 in Writ-A No. 11283 of 2019 (Smt. Kamla Sipal & 40 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) is reproduced as under:-

¶22

“Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted Sri Shatrughan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that State Government has issued a Government Order dated 17.6.2019 for adjustment of teachers in different educational institution run by U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad for session 2019-20 and for that detailed procedure has been provided for "adjustment" of teachers. In paragraph 2 of the Government Order dated 17.6.2019, it is specifically mentioned that for "adjustment", maximum enrolment of previous year shall be taken for determining the student teacher ratio . He further submits that very same criteria was also adopted by Basic Education Officer of Badaun, Kushinagar, Meerut etc., but in the case of petitioners, entirely different criteria was adopted for calculating the student teacher ratio. Total number of students intake in Mid Day Meal in a year was divided by total number of days distribution of Mid Day Meal . He further submits that for fixing the teacher

¶24

¶25

student ratio for "adjustment", a self generated formula was adopted and for distribution of schools dress, shocks, books sweater, the cut off date is taken as total number of students enrolled on 30th September of that year. He further submits that formula so adopted is beyond the commonsense of any prudent person and for distribution of materials, different criteria has been adopted . He further submits that formula so adopted for teacher student ratio for the purpose of " adjustment" is absolutely contravention of Government Order dated 17.6.2019 and number of student has to be calculated as it is done by Basic Education Officer, Badaun, Kushinagar, Meerut District.

¶26

Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instruction about the matter.

¶27

Put up this case as fresh on 9.8.2019.

¶28

Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.”

¶29

Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 submits that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law.

¶30

Discussion & Findings:

¶31

I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶32

Undisputably, the State Government has taken a policy decision dated 17.6.2019 to transfer Assistant Teachers of such institutions where they are surplus, to such institutions where there is single Assistant Teacher or no Assistant Teachers, so as to achieve the object of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (herein after referred to as the Act, 2009), and Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (herein after referred to as the Rules, 2011). For this purpose, the District Level Transfer Committee has been constituted which consist of District Magistrate as Chairman and four other Officers as members. The District Basic Education is member Secretary of the Committee. The policy intends to ensure that students may not suffer due to lack of teachers and every school may have sufficient teachers as far as possible, as per available work force i.e. Assistant Teachers.

¶33

The aforesaid Government dated 17.6.2019 is reproduced below:-

¶34

izs"kd]

¶35

js.kqdk dqekj] vij eq[; lfpo] mRrj izns'k 'kkluA lsok esa]

¶36

¶37

1& f'k{kk funs'kd ¼csfld½] 2&lfpo] csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn] m0iz0 y[kuÅA m0iz0 iz;kxjktA

¶38

csfld f'k{kk vuqHkkx&5 y[kuÅ] fnukad 17 twu 2019 fo"k;& m0iz0 csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds fu;a=.kk/khu lapkfyr izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu ds laca/k esaA egksn;]

¶39

mi;ZqDr fo"k;d vius i=kad& f'k0fu0¼cs0½ @16208@2019&20] fnukad 2705-2019 dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds }kjk mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds fu;a=.kk/khu lapkfyr izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed fo| ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu ds lEcU/k esa izLrko miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA 2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu ds fy, fuEuor uhfr fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS & ¼1½ tuinh; LFkkukUrj.k gsrq lfefr& 1&ftykf/kdkjh& v/;{k 2&vij ftykf/kdkjh& lnL; 3&ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh& lnL; lfpo 4&izkpk;Z ftyk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk ukfer ,d

¶40

lnL; ¼lEcfU/kr tuin½& lnL; 5&tuin eq[;ky; ij dk;Zjr [k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh& lnL; ¼2½ ifj"knh; izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa lek;kstu gsrq inksa dk fu/kkZj.k&

¶41

fu%'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk vf/kdkj fu;ekoyh&2011 ds fu;e&21 esa nh x;h O;oLFkkuqlkj tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu gsrq fuEuor O;oLFkk iz[;kfir gS & 21&¼1½ ftyk eftLVªsV vius&vius tuin ds izR;sd fo|ky; dh Lohdr v/;kid la[;k vf/klwpuk djsxk@,slh vf/klwpuk tuin dh csclkbV ij iznf'kZr dh tk;sxh rFkk fo|ky; dh Lohdr v/;kid la[;k lEcfU/kr fo| ky; dks ,oa LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh@ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks Hkh lwfpr dh tk;sxh]

¶42

ijUrq ,slh vf/klwpuk ds nks ekg ds vUnj ftyk eftLVªsV mu fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dks iqu;ksZftr djsxk] tgkW mifu;e&¼1½ esa fufnZ"V vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus ds iwoZ v/;kidksa dh la[;k Lohd`r la[;k ls vf/kd gksA

¶43

¼2½ ftyk eftLVªsV izR;sd o"kZ ds tqykbZ ekg ds iwoZ Lohd`r fofufnZ"V f'k";&v/;kid vuqikr dks cuk;s j[kus gsrq fo|ky; dh v/;kid la[;k dk iqujh{k.k djsxk rFkk vko';drkuqlkj v/;kidks dks iqu;ksftr djsxkA ¼3½ d& lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh &

¶44

lek;kstu gsrq fuEu izk:i ij lwpuk lajf{kr dh tk;sxh&

¶45

1&fo|ky; dk uke] ;w&Mk;jk dksM lfgrA

¶46

2& foxr o"kZ dk vf/kdre ukekadu A

¶47

3&f'k{kd dh vko';drk ¼vkj0Vh0bZ0 ekud ds vuqlkj½

¶48

4&dk;Zjr v/;kid dh la[;k

¶49

5&v/;kidks dh deh@vf/kdrkA

¶50

6&Hkfo"; esa Ldwy pyks vfHk;ku ds vUrxZr tuin esa fo|ky;ks esa cPpks dh la[;k esa c<+ksRrjh gksrh gS rks lek;kstu ds ek/;e ls ;Fkko';drk uohu lek;kstu dk vf/kdkj ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr esa fufgr jgsxkA

¶51

[k&izR;sd fo|ky; esa v/;kid&Nk= vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij inksa dk fu/kkZj.k gksus ds mijkUr loZizFke v/;kidks ds lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA x& ftu fo|ky;ksa esa v/;kid&Nk= ekud ls vf/kd v/;kid dk;Zjr gS ogkW ls mudks gVkdj vko';drk okys fo|ky;ksa esa rSukr fd;k tk;sxk A

¶52

?k&blds mijkUr gh ;fn dksbZ f'k{kd tuin ds Hkhrj ,d Cykd ls nwljs Cykd ¼xzkeh.k ls xzkeh.k {ks= esa ,oa uxjh; ls uxjh; {ks= esa½ ikjLifjd

¶53

¶54

lek;kstu pkgrk gS rks ml ij lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA xzkeh.k ls uxj {ks= esa ,oa uxj {ks= ls xzkeh.k {ks= esa ikjLifjd lek;kstu ugha fd;k tk,xkA lek;kstu esa ;g /;ku j[kk tk;sxk fd izR;sd mPp izkFkfed fo| ky;ksa esa [email protected] ds v/;kidksa dh miyC/krk jgsA

¶55

M& v/;kid&Nk= la[;k ds vkdyu ds dze esa ekud ls vf/kd v/;kid@v/;kfidkvksa dks vU;= lek;ksftr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr lacaf/kr fo|ky; esa fdlh vU; v/;kid dk lek;kstu ugha fd;k tk;sxkA p&ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxk fd lek;kstu ds mijkUr dksbZ fo|ky; cUn ,oa ,dy u jg tk;sA

¶56

N& ,sls fo|ky; tgkW ij Nk=kvksa dk ukekadu vf/kd gS] mu fo|ky;ksa esa de ls de ,d efgyk v/;kfidk dh rSukrh vfuok;Z :i ls dh tk;A ftykf/kdkjh blesa foosdkuqlkj vko';drk fu/kkZfjr djsaxsA tuin Lrjh; lfefr }kjk lek;kstu esa fnO;kax ,oa lsuk esa dk;Zjr toku ds ifr@iRuh dks ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA t& tuin esa lek;kstu izfdz;k esa fdlh izdkj dh dfBukbZ ds fujkdj.k gsrq tuin Lrj ij xfBr lfefr l{ke gksxh A >& tuin esa lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh 15 tqykbZ] 2019 rd iw.kZ dj yh tk;s rFkk mlds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh tuinh; lek;kstu ugh fd;k tk;sxkA

¶57

m0iz0 csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds fu;a=.kk/khu lapkfyr izkFkfed@mPp i z kFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh mDr fu/kkZfjr izfdz;kuqlkj] ikjnf'kZrkiw.kZ <aXk ls lqfuf'pr dh tk;sA mDr lek;kstu gsrq fo|ky;okj v/;kidksa dk vkadyu] ukekadu ,o ukekadu ds lkis{k okLrfod :i ls mifLFkr Nk=ksa dh la[;k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk;sxk A tuinh; lfefr dks mifLFkr Nk=ksa dh okLrfod la[;k ls voxr djkus dk dk;Z ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk gksxk A blesa =`fV ds fy, ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh lh/ks rkSj ij mRrjnk;h gksaxsA fdlh Hkh Lrj ij vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij izR;sd Lerj ij mRrjnkf;Ro dk fu/kkZj.k dk fu;ekuqlkj dBksj dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA

¶58

Hkonh;k

¶59

js.kqdk dqekj vij eq[; lfpoA

¶60

The policy decision of the State Government being Government Order dated 17.6.2019 is not under challenge. Merely the order of transfer / adjustment has been challenged by the petitioners.

¶61

In making transfer / adjustment in terms of the policy decision dated 17.6.2019, the authorities have adopted uniform method. No specific perversity could be pointed out by the petitioners in the list of students and teachers prepared by the District Basic Education Officer, filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition which is not even under challenge in the present writ petition. The impugned transfer / adjustment orders are merely consequential to the above. Therefore, it cannot interfered with.

¶62

Petitioners have completely failed to show any prejudice caused to them by the impugned transfer orders.

¶63

The State is under constitutional obligation under Article 21A of the Constitution of India and also under statutory obligation under the Act, 2009 and the Rules framed thereunder, to provide free and quality education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years which intends a systematic change to empower deprived Sections of the Society. The present petition is clearly intended to frustrate the very object of the Act, 2009 and fundamental rights of children under Article 21A of the

¶64

¶65

Constitution of India by opposing their transfer / adjustment orders without any fundamental or statutory right to remain on the place of present posting. Paragraph No.3(d) of the G.O. dated 17.06.2019 requires to secure certain information. The last paragraph of the G.O. contains policy decision that adjustment of teachers shall be made on the basis of actual number of students in the school as against the total number of students enrolled. This exercise has been undertaken by the respondents and on that basis the impugned adjustment order has been passed. Thus, impugned adjustment order is in conformity with the policy decision of the State Government dated 17.06.2019. Therefore, the impugned adjustment order cannot be interfered with.

¶66

For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned transfer / adjustment orders. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.”

¶67

That apart, this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order or the impugned order adversely effects any of his service conditions or benefits but learned counsel for the petitioner could not answer the said question.

¶68

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is dismissed . Order Date :- 29.11.2019/vkg

Girija Shankar Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Shankar Ram v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Shankar Dubey and Others Vs Anil Kumar Gupta Commissioner and Another

Virnadavan Verma Vs Sri D.N.S.Suman Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Pccf

Rakesh Kumar Vs Principal Government Inter College, Prayagraj, and 4 Others

Dr. Rakesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Lallan Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Faizan Ali Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others