Allowed

Mohammad Arshad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2019WRIA/19180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the order of the District Level Committee rejecting the petitioner's representation was non-speaking and passed without application of mind as it did not address specific objections regarding the petitioner's surplus status and lack of sanctioned strength data. The petition was allowed, and the order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.09.2019 set aside; District Level Committee directed to pass fresh order within two months considering relevant rules and representations; coercive action stayed for two months

Mohammad Arshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19180 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohammad Arshad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar,Amit Saxena (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mudala, Vikas Khand Mohammadpur, Devmal, District Bijnor run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh.

¶7

It appears that under transfer policy of State Government dated 17.06.2019, the petitioner was transferred/adjusted in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Bagnala, Block Kotwali, 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) challenging the order dated 26.07.2019 and 09.08.2019 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.

¶8

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.

¶9

The District Level Committee has rejected the representation of the petitioner which has been communicated by Respondent No. 3- District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor by order dated 18.09.2019.

¶10

Challenging the order 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 impugned order clearly reveals that the specific objection taken by the petitioner has not been considered by the authority concerned and as such the impugned order is non-speaking and without application of mind.

¶11

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the specific objection taken by the petitioner has been considered and dealt with by the District Level Committee.

¶12

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

¶13

In the facts of the present case, the District Level Committee is directed to pass 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.

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

Order Date :- 10.12.2019 Jaswant

Mohammad Arshad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Arshad v. State of U.P. 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

Rajiv Nandan Upadhyaya Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sunil Henry Vs Union of India and Others

Laxmi Kant Tripathi Vs M.D. U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow and Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India and 4 Others