Allowed

Poonam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/67/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged inter-District transfer preference for school teachers, alleging violation of age-based priority rules despite equal weightage. Court held preference was violated and directed authorities to consider grievance if vacancies emerge within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner sought preference for inter-District transfer; Court directed opposite parties to consider grievance within three weeks if vacancy exists.

Poonam Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:16159

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Poonam Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Ravi Prakash Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.3 and Mr. Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

¶7

In pursuance of directions issued earlier, supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.5 is taken on record. The aforesaid supplementary affidavit brings on record the order dated 07.02.2024 indicating the names of six persons including the petitioner for whom equal weightage of 22 marks was provided in terms of Government Order dated 02.06.2023.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of directions issued in paragraph 16 of Government Order dated 02.06.2023, the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad issued a Circular dated 04.08.2023 in which criteria for providing preference pertaining to inter-District transfer has been indicated. It is submitted that a perusal of order dated 07.02.2024 itself would indicate that petitioner's date of first joining is 05.12.2020 with date of birth being 29.03.1983 whereby she is the eldest of the said six persons. Her date of first joining is also equivalent to that of other three persons and therefore in terms of Circular dated 04.08.2023 particularly paragraph 1(6) thereof, petitioner being the eldest was required to be granted preference for allotment of School pertaining to inter-District transfer but the opposite parties in fact have taken

¶9

the date of posting in her current place for the aforesaid purposes which is contrary to the aforesaid Circular.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party no.3, however, draws sustenance from paragraph 2(1) of Government Order dated 02.06.2023 to submit that it is the date of current posting which was required to be taken into account which has been done in the case of petitioner.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is quite evident that petitioner's posting has been done taking into account her date of joining in the current place of posting in terms of paragraph 2(1) of Government Order dated 02.06.2023. However, a perusal of aforesaid provision indicates that the said aspect was required to be seen only for a limited purpose to ascertain the length of service of a Teacher in a particular District since only such female Teachers having completed two years of service and male Teachers having completed five years of service in a District were required to be included in the inter-District transfer list. In paragraph 12 of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023, procedure has been indicated for calculation of weightage for the purposes of interDistrict transfer. In paragraph 16 of the Government Order, the Basic Shiksha Parishad has been granted liberty to issue Circulars pertaining to technical and procedural aspects.

¶12

It is in pursuance of paragraph 16 of the Government Order that the Circular dated 04.08.2023 has been issued. A perusal of Government Order dated 02.06.2023 makes it quite evident that it stops at the stage where the procedure for grant of weightage is indicated. In fact paragraph 13 of the Government Order is in consonance with paragraph 1(6) of the Circular dated 04.08.2023 wherein also it has been provided that in case

¶13

weightage of certain Teachers is the same, preference is to be given to the person older in age.

¶14

Upon consideration of such aspect and upon perusal of order dated 07.02.2024, it is quite evident that since weightage provided to petitioner and other persons was the same, petitioner was required to be granted preference in view of her being elder to all the other candidates. This having not been done, is a clear violation of not only the Government Order but the Circular as well.

¶15

However, a practical difficulty has been indicated by learned counsel for opposite party no.3 that as of now all the posts in the Districts have already been filled and there is no vacancy for purposes of inter-District transfer. Learned counsel for petitioner however disputes the same.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts, particularly the aspect that preference required to be given to petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 02.06.2023 and the Circular dated 04.08.2023 having not been followed has divested petitioner of her right for preference.

¶17

In view of aforesaid facts, this Court without interfering with impugned posting list dated 25.09.2023 since it would have a cascading effect, directs opposite parties 3 and 5 collectively to consider petitioner's grievance for posting as per her choice in case vacancy is available. Such a decision shall be taken by the said authority within a period of three weeks' from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon them

¶18

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed to aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 kvg/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Poonam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravindra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport Deptt. and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs Development New Delhi and 6 Others

Ram Dhiraj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Irfan Ahmad Mir Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry Chemicals/Fertilisers and 2 Others

Avneesh Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperatives Lko. and 15 Others

Rama Shankar Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Cane Development and Sugar Industries Lko. and 6 Others