Disposed

Smt Mamta Sharma v. Director Secondary Edu andORS

Rajasthan HC19 Aug 2016CW/10939/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging teacher transfers for alleged violations of level, subject, and cadre rules. The court held complexes petitioners must file detailed representations, and the department must redraw orders using agreed guidelines and settle grievances within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the department to consider representations from petitioners within two months and redress grievances regarding transfer orders based on agreed judicial guidelines.

Smt Mamta Sharma Vs Director Secondary Edu andORS — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10232/2016 Smt. Rooplata Meena Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶4

(2 ) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8003/2016 Ramgopal Gupta Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶5

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8309/2016 Surekha Tiwari Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶6

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8732/2016 Subhash Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶7

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8306/2016 Kishanlal Mali Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶8

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8307/2016 Angadram Meena Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶9

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8724/2016 Asha Sharma Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶10

(8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8731/2016 Sant Ram Yadav Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶11

(9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8733/2016 Sheesh Ram Yadav Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶12

(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8933/2016 Smt. Rajbala Devi Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶13

(11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9073/2016 Smt. Rajesh Gautam Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶14

(12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9090/2016 Jyoti Sharma Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶15

(13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9429/2016 Purushottam Pachauri Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶16

(14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9472/2016 Dinesh Kumar Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶17

(15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9995/2016 Seema Choudhary Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶18

¶19

(16)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10089/2016 Vikram Singh & Anr.VersusState of Raj. & Anr.
(17)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10090/2016 NilofarVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(18)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10095/2016 Premchand TeliVersusDy. Secretary, Education Gr.2 & Ors.
(19)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10098/2016 Meenu Saini & Ors.VersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(20)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10241/2016 Ayub KhanVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(21)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10246/2016 Zakir HussainVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(22)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10264/2016 Sharda MeghwalVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(23)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10291/2016 Premlata SharmaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(24)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10294/2016 Janak Raj MeenaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(25)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10295/2016 Mangal Ram Meena & Ors.VersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(26)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10306/2016 Savita PanchVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(27)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10384/2016 Smt. Pintu ChauhanVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(28 )	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10516/2016 Shiv Lal JatVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(29)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10385/2016 Geeta SharmaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(30)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10664/2016 Mamta MahawarVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(31)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10939/2016
	Smt. Mamta SharmaVersusDirector, Secondary Education & Ors.

¶20

¶21

(32 )	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10386/2016 Vinod AcharyaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(33)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10387/2016 Laxmi Kant SharmaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(34)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10388/2016 Kailash SharmaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(35)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10389/2016 Bhairu Lal GurjarVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(36)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10501/2016 Dharamwati DeviVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(37)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10531/2016 Hariom SharmaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(38)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10544/2016 Akleem AhmedVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(39)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10650/2016 Dinesh Sharma & Ors.VersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(40)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10652/2016 Chetna MangalVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(41)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10653/2016 Maya GargVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(42)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10654/2016 Sarfuddin KhanVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(43)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10659/2016 Ajmal Waheed Ansari & Anr.VersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(44)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10661/2016 Akash TrivediVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(45)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10662/2016 Smt. PremlataVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(46)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10665/2016 Smt. Sunita BairwaVersusState of Raj. & Ors.
(47)	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10744/2016
	Sunil Kumar ChaharVersusState of Raj. & Ors.

¶22

¶23

(48) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10804/2016 Amar Singh Meena & Ors. Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶24

(49) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10828/2016 Azhar Javed Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶25

(50) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10868/2016 Pramod Kumar Sharma Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶26

(51) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10892/2016 Dhan Singh Meena Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶27

(52) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10893/2016 Vijay Prakash Gautam Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶28

(53) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10895/2016 Farhana Khan Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶29

(54) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10896/2016 Kalyanmal Meena Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶30

(55) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10925/2016 Lokesh Sharma Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶31

(56) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10926/2016 Rajendra Prasad Meena Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶32

(57) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10996/2016 Smita Nagar Versus State of Raj. & Ors.

¶33

DATE OF ORDER : 19/08/2016

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶35

Mr. Ashish Saksena, Mr. S.K. Singodiya, Mr. Hari Krishan Sharma, Mr. Banwari Sharma, Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati, Mr.Sunil Kumar Jain, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. T.L. Pandey, Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Mr. Narendra Mishra, Mr. Vinod Goyal, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, Mr. Sudhir Gupta, Mr. Sunil Kumar Swami, Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. N.K. Tiwari, Mr. Pradeep Kalwania, Mr. R.D. Meena, Mr. Laxmi Kant, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Mr. R.K. Gouttam, Mr.Ashok Bansal, Mr. Mr. H.P. Singh, Mr. Brijesh Yadav, Mr.Iliyas Khan, Mr. Rudraksh Sharma, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini, Mr.Vijay Pathak, for petitioners

¶36

Mr. S.K. Gupta, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Counsel, for the State

¶37

¶38

By this bunch of writ petitions, a challenge is made to the orders of transfer after counselling. It pertains to Elementary as well as Secondary Education Deparments.

¶39

This court issued notices and a copy of which was served on Shri S.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General and Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Counsel, appearing for the Education Departments. The transfer of the petitioners was made after finding them to be surplus in the school. They were called for counselling to seek option for posting in other school. The department took a decision to transfer the Teachers (Level-I & II) to other schools where there was need. It is after assessing requirement of the Teachers in each school. The Teachers found to be surplus, were called for the counselling. If some one had appeared in the counselling then after taking their choice, they were posted to other schools. If one failed to report in the counselling then treating them to be absent, their transfer to other schools was made. The action has been challenged in these writ petitions on the various grounds, out of which, main grounds are as follows:

¶40

(i) The petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) and have been transferred against the post meant for Teacher

¶41

¶42

Gr.III (Level-I) or even vice-versa. While transferring the teachers, their level of post could not have been changed.

¶43

(ii) While effecting the transfer, the petitioners have been sent against a post of different subjects then soubht by them after their appointment in a particular subject.

¶44

(iii) The allegations have been made about the counselling after filling vacant post of nearby area from favourate. At the time of counselling, the petitioners were not given option for those schools which were nearby to their place of posting.

¶45

(iv) It is also alleged by few petitioners that their names were not shown in the list of candidates called for counselling but later on transferred without taking their desire for place of posting.

¶46

¶47

(v) The other ground is regarding change of cadre. A Teacher recruited in the Elementary Education Department has been transferred to Secondary Education Department or viceversa despite availability of vacant post in their department itself.

¶48

(vi) It is also alleged that despite vacant and available post in various schools nearby to the present place of posting of the petitioners, option for those schools was not given thus petitioners were left with no option but to opt for school to a far-off place.

¶49

(vii) At the time of first counselling, only few schools were notified, whereas, at the time of second counselling, for other candidates, few more schools were added though were not given for choice to the petitioners.

¶50

Learned Additional Advocate General Shri S.K. Gupta and Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Government Counsel submit that in pursuance

¶51

¶52

to the notices issued by this court with copy of the writ petition, the department was asked to redress the grievances of the petitioners without affecting administration. In pursuance to the aforesaid, most of the writ petitions have become infructuous. The counselling was held by the department on 17^th August, 2016 as per directions of the court. In pursuance of the counselling, many of the petitioners have been transferred to other places.

¶53

It is further stated that Teachers recruited at Level-II have been transferred to Level-I due to administrative exigencies. Presently, there is shortage of Teachers at Level-I thus to properly manage the schools, few Teachers of Level-II have been transferred to Level-I. It is in the interest of administration. The arrangement aforesaid is temporary. All the Teachers of Level-II would be transfered on their post immediately on appointment of the Teachers Gr.III (level-I) or soon after availability of the post in other schools.

¶54

¶55

The care has also been taken to call all the surplus Teachers in counselling so as to take their option. A detailed list of Teachers rendered surplus was issued with a direction to participate in the counselling so as to take their choice of posting in another school. The orders of transfer were issued after taking choice of the Teachers other than who failed to appear in the counselling. While holding the counselling, available post and the school were notified to take choice of the Teachers and it was in Primary as well as in Secondary

¶56

schools.

¶57

The allegations made against the department are thus not proper. It is reflected from their subsequent action in pursuance of the order of the court where grievances of many petitioners have already been redressed rendering writ petitions to be infructuous. The department is still open for further action as per direction of the court but care may be taken that it may not effect the studies of the

¶58

¶59

students in various schools. The department would undertake the required exercise to redress the grievances of remaining petitioners and for which each petitioner be directed to make a detailed representation which would then be considered by the department.

¶60

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶61

After considering various grievances raised by the petitioners and narrated above, it can be redressed, if representation is given by the petitioners within ten days from today and exercise is thereupon undertaken by the department in the following manner for which their exist agreement between the parties:

¶62

(1) The petitioners would make a representation to the respondents raising their grievances against the order of posting. It would be by narrating ground for challenge of the posting. The representation aforesaid would be submitted within a period of ten days from today along with certified copy of this order.

¶63

The respondent department i.e. Secondary as well as Elementary Education

¶64

¶65

would immediately notify the vacant posts in different schools and out of which, in which school they are in need of a Teacher. If a vacant post exists in the school, but looking to the strength of the students, the Teacher may not be required then while notifying the vacant post in the school, it would be made clear by the department that against any post or posts, they do not need additional hands. It is agreed that if the department finds that additional hands are not required in a particular school or against a post, then such posts would not be filled by transfer for a period of three months.

¶66

(2) The Teachers of Level II posted against the post of Level-I would be transferred back to their post immediately after getting the new recruitees or on availability of the Teacher (Level-I). The said exercise would be undertaken vice-versa i.e. for transfer of Teachers Gr.III appointed on Level-I but transferred against the post of Level-II, if any.

¶67

(3) The department would post the Teacher against the post meant for specialised subject if their recruitment was in a particular subject or they are teaching the subject for years together. The Teacher of subject would be transferred to a post of the said subject only so that students may not suffer.

¶68

¶69

(4) While undertaking the exercise, the department may take into consideration the guidelines issued on 8^th May, 2016 and 9^th May, 2016. While applying the said guidelines, the effort would be to redress the grievances of the petitioners.

¶70

(5) The petitioners would be at liberty to indicate their choice of school other than it is notified by the respondents.

¶71

(6) If mutual transfer is sought then it would be dealth with by the department. The request can be accepted because in the case of mutual transfer, it would not affect any one which includes even the department. The prayer for mutual transfer would be between the employees of same level of the post and set up apart from subject, if any.

¶72

(7) If the petitioners have already joined the post in pursuance of the orders under challenge, then their joining would not be taken adverse for disposal of the representation and carrying out the directions given.

¶73

(8) Apart from the issues referred above, if any other issue exists to seek change of the place of transfer, the petitioners would be at liberty to make a representation showing the ground for it like posting of husband and wife at one

¶74

¶75

place, illness, disability, retirement in few months or any such similar ground.

¶76

(9) It is agreed that the representation would be considered by the department within a period of two months with necessary order.

¶77

The writ petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.

¶78

[M.N.BHANDARI], J.

¶79

FRBOHRA

Smt Mamta Sharma v. Director Secondary Edu andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mamta Sharma v. Director Secondary Edu andORS

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

Lalit Jain and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bharti and Others Vs Surendra Yadav and Others

Samundra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Shiv Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bholaram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Phoolchand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp