The court disposed of a writ petition challenging government orders on teacher transfers.
Writ petition disposed of by reference to prior judgments without passing fresh orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130120
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11049 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Rajput And Another Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard Shri Shivendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel is appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4.
2. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition of Clause (9) of the Govt. Order dated 26.06.2024 issued by respondent no.1 and condition of Clause (3) of Circular dated 28.06.2024 issued by respondent no.3 in respect of transfer/adjustment of junior Assistant Teacher as surplus (Annexure no.1 and 2 to the writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioners as Assistant Teacher in their respective schools."
3. It is argued by Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4 that conditions of Clause No.9 of the Government order dated 26.06.2024 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 passed in Writ A No. 10686 of 2024 (Govind Kaushik and 116 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) . Order reads as follows:-
"1. Heard Shri Man Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned C.S.C. and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Basic Education.
2. Present petition has been filed primarily for the following relief :
"(i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned government order dated 26.06.2024 issued by the respondent no. 1 to the extent in so far as Clause-2(3), 2(7), 2(8) and 2(9) are concerned.
(ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned circular dated 28.06.2024 issued by the Secretary of the Board of Basic
Education, U.P. at Prayagraj to the extent in so far as Clause-2(3), 2(7), 2(8) and 2(9) and Clause-3 are concerned."
3. Amongst other, it has been strenuously urged that the basic criteria adopted by the State to seek intra-district transfer of surplus teacher, is flawed. While the policy is being implemented midway in the Academic Session 2024-25, the student-teacher ratio being considered to implement the policy is for the Academic Session 2023-24. Therefore, it has been objected that the arbitrary and whimsical action is bound to arise in the implementation of such a flawed policy.
4. In such circumstances, on 24.7.2024 we had made below quoted observation :
"2. At the outset, on query made, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the Board states that data for the current academic session 2024-25 is available with the Board.
3. The intra-district policy having been enforced on 26.06.2024 during academic session 2024-25, it is to be ascertained why the current student-teacher ratio has been excluded from consideration."
5. Today, Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned CSC has placed on record written instructions dated 29.7.2024 received by him from the Director of Education (Basic). Copy of the same has been marked as 'X' and retained on record. 4th paragraph of the said written instruction reads as below :
6. In view of the stand taken by the State, it has to be recognised that the policy impugned in the writ petition has been partially modified so as to rely on the studentteacher ratio as on 30.06.2024 i.e. Academic Session 2024-25. Thereby the principal grievance of the petitioner has also been addressed.
7. As to the action taken/to be taken under the impugned policy, on query made, learned counsel for the respondent states that it would take at least six weeks to prepare ready list of teachers who may be considered for intra-district academic. However, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Board of Basic Education would further submit that at the stage of it becoming necessary, the eligible teachers would be given a choice of schools where they may be adjusted.
8. Seen in that light, in the first place, the principal grievance of the petitioner has been addressed by the State-respondents. Also, for any other grievance that may arise, we leave it open to the petitioners to approach the Court again, if cause of
action arises.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. "
4. It is further informed by her that the validity of the aforesaid Government Order was also challenged in Writ A No. 9970 of 2024 (Neerja and 50 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) , in which the following order was passed:-
"1. Heard Shri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Dr. D.K. Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Ms. Archana Singh, learned Counsel for the Board.
2. In compliance of the last order, personal affidavit of Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj have been filed today. They are taken on record.
3. The timelines indicated in paragraph-9 of the affidavit filed by the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and paragraph-7 of the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj do appear to address the concern expressed in the last order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time.
5. Put up as fresh on 14.08.2024.
6. In the meantime, the process indicated in paragraph-9 of the affidavit of Principal Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and paragraph-7 of the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Prayagraj may go on.
7. Restrain placed on the transfers is thus vacated. "
5. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by the aforesaid judgments as quoted above, hence no further orders are required to be passed.
6. This fact is also admitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner.
7. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of aforesaid writ petitions.
Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Swati
Digitally signed by :- SWATI PATHAK High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requiring quashing of transfer conditions regarding Assistant Teachers requires a fresh order given prior judgments disposed of the matter.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Kaushik and 116 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 othersFollowed¶10
Writ A No. 10686 of 2024 (Govind Kaushik and 116 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others)
Neerja and 50 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 othersFollowed¶27
Writ A No. 9970 of 2024 (Neerja and 50 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jitendra Singh Rajput And Another
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Prakash Padia
Swati Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
