Disposed

Anjana Devi v. State

Himachal Pradesh HC14 Dec 2010CWP/6299/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner, a teacher, challenged her transfer from one school to another within the district, citing personal hardships involving her young son. The single-judge bench ordered no immediate relief but directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter within a fortnight along with a copy of the judgment, while maintaining an interim order.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anjana Devi Vs State — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

¶2

CWP No. 6299 of 2010. Decided on: 14.12.2010.

¶3

__________________________________________________ Anjana Devi. … Petitioner.

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and others. … Respondents.

¶6

___________________________________________________________ Coram:

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶8

For the petitioner : Mr. B.S. Chauhan, Advocate.

¶9

For respondent No.1to 3 : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G..

¶10

¶11

Justice V.K. Sharma,J. (Oral).

¶12

The petitioner is a JBT Teacher. She has been transferred from Government Primary School, Kothi, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur to Government Primary School, Chunag, Tehsil Kalpa, District Kinnaur, H.P. vide order dated nil of August, 2010, Annexure P-1.

¶13

The petition has been filed on the following averments set up vide paras 3, 6 and 8 of the petition:-

¶14

“3. That the petitioner joined the Department of Education in November, 2000 as Vidya Upasak after having taken the screening test. The petitioner joined as Vidya Upasak in Govt. Primary School Leo, Distt. Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh. The petitioner worked as Vidya Upasak in the said School up to August, 2007 and in September, 2007 the petitioner joined as J.B.T. on regular basis in the same school and worked as J.B.T. up to 26^th December, 2009. The petitioner was transferred from Govt. Primary School Leo to

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.

¶16

¶17

Govt. Primary School Kothi and joined as J.B.T. in Govt. Primary School Kothi on 27^th December, 2009.

¶18

That the petitioner has 11 months son. In case the transfer of petitioner is not stayed and she is not allowed to continue as J.B.T. in Govt. Primary School Kothi, that would certainly effect the up-bringing and over all growth of minor son. The petitioner would not be able to carry her son to the place where she has been transferred vide order Annexure P-1 because there would be no body to look after her son from 10 to 4 P.M. In case the petitioner is allowed to work at Govt. Primary School Kothi where her parents are also residing, she would be able to look after her son also.

¶19

That the respondent No.3 and his subordinate in his office did not relish the filing of Civil Writ Petition which was ultimately allowed by this Hon’ble Court by directing the respondent No.3 to implement the transfer order issued in favour of the petitioner from Govt. Primary School Leo to Govt. Primary School Kothi and it appears that still the filing of said writ in this Hon’ble Court is hounding in the mind of respondent No.3 and his subordinate in the office. In that process again they have manipulated the present transfer from Govt. Primary School Kothi to Govt. Primary School Chunag. The petitioner has been transferred and against her post no body has been posted which means that her post has been kept vacant. The present action of the respondents does not serve any purpose for the reason that her place has been kept vacant. Besides this it is pertinent to mention

¶20

¶21

here that in the Govt. Primary School Kothi there are three teachers who have almost completed three years in the said school but they have not been touched/transferred by the respondents reason best known to them.”

¶22

On the above averments, following prayers

¶23

have been made:-

¶24

“(i) The impugned order dated 26.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) and 22.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) may be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

¶25

(ii). That the respondents may be directed to allow the petitioner to work as J.B.T. (Teacher) in the Govt. Primary School Kothi till her normal tenure of posting is not complete i.e. three years.”

¶26

In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents,

¶27

the following stand has been taken vide para 4:-

¶28

“4. That the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner is a JBT teacher, who has the District Cadre, therefore, she can be transferred anywhere within District Kinnaur. It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner from Govt. Primary School, Kothi to Govt. Primary School, Chunag on administrative grounds, in condonation of short stay, with TTA/joining time has been made with the prior approval of competent authority. It is further submitted that as per the information received from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Kinnaur at Reckongpeo, the petitioner has beaten a student of 5^th class badly. The parents of the student carried out

¶29

¶30

the child to the Disitrict Hospital, Reckongpeo at Kinnaur and the Doctor referred the case to Rampur Hospital for treatment and the villager of the Kothi has given written complaint against the petitioner with the request that petitioner may be transferred from Govt. Primary School, Kothi to any other school because their children are refusing to go to the school. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred on complaint basis, because she has given corporal punishment to the little child of 5^th class student. Whereas, corporal punishment has totally been banned. It is further submitted that a distance from Govt. Primary School, Kothi to Govt. Primary School, Chunag is about 25 k.m. and it is situated at roadside.”

¶31

In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2/Competent Authority that subject to the petitioner making a representation along with a copy of this judgment within a fortnight from today, the said respondent/Competent Authority shall consider the same and take final decision in the matter in accordance with law and justice within next fortnight, after hearing the petitioner. Till then interim order dated 5.10.2010 shall continue.

¶32

The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

¶33

Dasti copy.

¶34

(V.K. Sharma) Judge.

¶35

December 14, 2010. (cr)

¶36

Anjana Devi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anjana Devi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakri Devi Vs State

Narender Kumar Vs State

Prem Lata Vs State

Shyam Lal Vs State

Diwakar Ram Vs State

Champa Devi Vs State