Dismissed

Sundar Lal Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2022WRIA/5899/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition challenging transfer orders issued against Block Education Officers. The Court held that these were consequential orders stemming from unchallenged directives by the Election Commission and Chief Election Officer, making the petition non-maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds that the challenged orders were consequential and non-maintainable.

Sundar Lal Rawat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5899 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sundar Lal Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mirza Faheem Beg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mirza Faheem Beg, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶6

Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by respondent 1 Additional Chief Secretary (Basic) Education, Government of UP., Lucknow as well as the order dated 7.1.2022 passed by respondent 3 Additional Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Prayagraj, whereby petitioner, who is working as Block Education Officers, has been transferred.

¶7

The controversy involved in present writ petition has already been set at rest by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3794 of 2022, vide order dated 11.5.2022. For ready reference, same is reproduced herein under:-

¶8

"Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Vikram Bahadur Yadav, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶9

Petitioners who are 32 in numbers have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by respondent-1, Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education) Govt. of U.P., Lucknow as well as order dated 07.01.2022 passed by respondent-3, Additional Director of Education (Basic) U.P., Prayagraj, whereby petitioners who are working as Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari, have been transferred.

¶10

Present writ petition came up for admission on 06.05.2022 and this Court passed following order:-

¶11

"Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted three days' time to obtain instructions in the matter as to why few petitioners have not been relieved till date, though the transfer order has been passed on 07.01.2022. Put up this case on 11.05.2022 as fresh."

¶12

Pursuant to above order dated 06.05.2022, learned Standing counsel has received instructions. Same have been placed before Court and are taken on record.

¶13

On the basis of instructions received by learned Standing Counsel, he contends that in all 439 Block Education Officers were transferred pursuant to the directions issued by the Election Commission of India. Out of persons so transferred, 299 Block Education Officers have already been relieved of their duties from their place of posting.

¶14

Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioners contends that the orders impugned in present writ petition were passed on account of the directions issued by the Election Commission of India, vide its order dated 13.10.2021 followed by the order dated 14.10.2021 passed by the Chief Election Officer, U.P. in the light of State Assembly Elections scheduled to be held in the year 2022. Since the elections have now been held and some of the petitioners having not been relieved, there does not appear any justifiable reason to implement the orders impugned in present writ petition. Reliance has also placed upon an interim order dated 31.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.4029 of 2022 (Ram Dulare Prasad and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), which reads as under:-

¶15

"The petitioners' case is that only such persons whose names had found place in the order dated 27.12.2021 which was issued by the Additional Chief Election Officer were to be transferred. His further case is that relying upon the order 27.12.2021 a further order had been passed by the Special Secretary that transfers could be done.

¶16

Learned Standing Counsel submits that similar controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by this Court vide judgement and order dated 25.03.2022 passed in Writ A No. 447 of 2022 (Jagdish Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others).

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted two weeks' time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶18

Put up as fresh on 18.04.2022.

¶19

Till the next date of listing, status quo as of today shall be maintained."

¶20

On the aforesaid premise, it is submitted by Mr. Ashok Khare, the learned Senior Counsel that some of the petitioners though have been relieved but have still not joined at their transferred place of posting. He therefore contends that the orders impugned in present writ petition be stayed during pendency of present writ petition.

¶21

Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has opposed the present writ petition. He contends that the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow, copy of which is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition, was issued pursuant to the directions issued by Chief Election Officer, U.P., vide order dated 13.10.2021, copy of the letter dated 13.10.2021 (correct date is 14.10.2021) is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Perusal of aforesaid letter dated 14.10.2021 goes to show that same has been issued pursuant to an order dated 13.10.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India. No challenge has been laid to the order dated 13.10.2021 issued by the Election Commission of India or the order dated 14.10.2021 passed by Chief Election Officer, U.P. It is thus

¶22

contended that the orders impugned in the present writ petition are consequential orders. It is by now well-settled that no writ petition is maintainable against consequential order.

¶23

It is then contended that the aforesaid order dated 07.01.2022 passed by respondent-3 has already been upheld by this Court in Writ-A No.447 of 2022 (Jagdish Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others). Judgement and order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is squarely applicable in the present case. On the aforesaid premise, learned Standing Counsel contends that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard learned Senior Counsel for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the present writ petition has been filed challenging consequential orders. The principal order dated 13.10.2021 issued by the Chief Election Commission of India followed by the order dated 14.10.2021 passed by Chief Election Officer, U.P. having not been challenged the writ petition is directed against consequential orders, which is not maintainable.

¶25

Even otherwise also, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to take a different view than the one expressed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 25.03.2022.

¶26

For the facts and reasons noted above, writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶27

It is accordingly dismissed."

¶28

In view of aforesaid judgement, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶30

Order Date :- 19.5.2022 HSM

¶31

Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.05.19 17:52:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sundar Lal Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sundar Lal Rawat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Pal Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajat Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amrendra Singh Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deepak Vs the State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sanjay Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

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