Vijendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court reviewed a transfer of an Assistant Teacher. The District Level Committee's order rejecting a representation was set aside for being non-speaking and not addressing objections regarding sanctioned strength under RCFE Rules. A fresh order directing compliance is ordered within two months.
What did the court decide?
The order dated 18.09.2019 is set aside. No coercive action for two months. The District Level Committee to pass a fresh order within two months considering the representation.
What the court decided
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19181 of 2019
Petitioner :- Vijendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prem Prakash Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Bhagain, Vikas Khand Mohammadpur, Devmal, District Bijnor run by Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh on 19.09.1997.
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.
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.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding transfer was non-speaking as it did not address specific objections raised.
Whether the District Level Committee is required to consider the representation including the issue of sanctioned strength.
Whether a fresh order is to be passed after considering the representation regarding the transfer of the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Vijendra Kumar
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
District Basic Education Officer, Bijnor
- respondent
District Magistrate
- respondent
Basic Shiksha Parishad
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · December
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIA/19181/2019
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court