Disposed

Sushama v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2019WRIA/462/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition regarding transfer of a teacher from one school to another and non-issuance of reasons. The court, noting a prior order granting hearing to the village Gram Pradhan, refrained from deciding on merits and allowed the petitioner to make a fresh representation for a speaking order post-hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move a fresh representation before the District Basic Education Officer within two weeks; the officer directed to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner and the Gram

Sushama Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 462 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushama Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mrigraj Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajiv Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Mrigraj Singh, Advocate who has put his appearance on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

¶6

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 20.10.1997 in District Gorakhpur. Subsequently, she was transferred to Jaunpur from Gorakhpur and joined her duties in District Jaunpur on 10.12.1998. Subsequently, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Mistress vide order dated 27.7.2006. Due to serious illness of the younger son of the petitioner, she moved an application for child care leave which was duly sanctioned by the second respondent for a period of 90 days i.e. from 28.10.2017 to 24.01.2018. Subsequently, the petitioner again submitted application for extension of the said child care leave and the same was also granted by the District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur vide its order dated 24.5.2018 and the said leave was granted with effect from 25.1.2018 to 24.04.2018. The orders by which the child care leave was initially granted i.e. the order dated 26.10.2017 as well as the order by which the subsequent leave was granted i.e. order dated 24.5.2018 in both the orders name of the Institution of the petitioner was mentioned as Prathmic Vidhalaya Bhuwala Patti. Subsequently a fresh application was submitted by the petitioner for grant of child care leave which was not granted. The petitioner approached this Court by way of Writ A No.7766 of 2018(Sushma Vs. Rajendra Singh, Basic Siksha Adhikari and three others) The aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by this court vide its judgment and order dated 14.3.2018. By the aforesaid order, the District Basic Eduction Officer Jaunpur was directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and consider the same in the light of the Government Orders dated 8.12.2008 and 24.3.2009. Since the aforesaid order was not complied with, the petitioner was also compelled to approach this Court by filing a contempt application (Civil) No.2800 of 2018. In this background of the matter, when a further application was submitted by the petitioner for extension of child care leave, the District Basic Eduction Officer Jaunpur granted leave with

¶7

effect from 25.04.2018 to 26.10.2019.

¶8

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving any reason and communicating any order in writing, the name of the institution of the petitioner has been changed from Prathmic Vidhalaya Bhuwala Patti to Prathmic Vidhalaya Gopalganj. It is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is at present getting her salary from Prathmic Vidhalaya Gopalganj. No reason whatsoever has been communicated to the petitioner regarding change of the name of the Institution. In this regard, the petitioner had already made a representation addressed to the second respondent namely District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur on 4.6.2018, copy of the same is appended as Annexure No.11 to the writ petition. According to the petitioner till date no orders whatsoever has been passed on the same.

¶9

During the course of arguments, one Ram Milan Advocate has put his appearance in the matter by saying that the earlier a writ petition was filed by his client namely Gram Pradhan of village Bhuwala Patti levelling various allegations against the present petitioner. In the said writ petition, several orders were passed and in fact in compliance of the orders passed in the said writ petition filed by his client, the petitioner has been transferred from Prathmic Vidhalaya Bhuwala Patti to Prathmic Vidhalaya Gopalganj and as such no interference is required to be made by this Court in the present writ petition.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is disposed of in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶11

The petitioner is directed to move a fresh representation ventilating her grievances before the respondent No.2 namely District Basic Education Officer Jaunpur within a period of two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. If such a representation is made, the respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate speaking order after considering all aspects and hearing the petitioner as well as Gram Pradhan of village Bhuwala Patti within a further period of three months.

¶12

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶13

This Court is not expressing any opinion on merits of the case and the respondent No.2 is at liberty to pass order independently and also strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.1.2019 saqlain

Sushama v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushama 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana and 48 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaibeer and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mustey Haseen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Minakshi Rajpoot Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Buddhiram Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinita Vs State of U.P. and Another