Disposed

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2019WPSS/596/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of writ petitions filed by teachers regarding rejection of their representations for attachment transfer. The Court held that while transfer is an incidence of service, justice mandates that petitioners be permitted to make a fresh representation to the Competent Authority under the Transfer Rules, to be decided within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed with liberty to petitioners to make representation to Competent Authority within two weeks; Competent Authority to decide within eight weeks in accordance with the law.

Rajesh Kumar and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand… — Education and Admissions | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 596 of 2018 with WPSS No. 659 of 2018 with WPSS No. 660 of 2018 with WPSS No. 661 of 2018 With WPSS No. 662 of 2018 with WPSS No. 663 of 2018 with WPSS No. 664 of 2018

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondents.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSS No. 596 of 2018 are being considered.

¶7

Petitioners were appointed as teacher in Government Primary Schools in district Pithoragarh. Teachers of Government Primary Schools have a block level cadre i.e., they are liable to be transferred within the block. Petitioners were seeking attachment in plain district of Uttarakhand State for which purpose they made representation to the Competent Authority. Since no decision was taken on their representation, therefore, they approached this Court by filing writ petition. Those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to look into the representation made by the petitioners and take appropriate decision. Pursuant to order of this Court, the representation made by the petitioners was considered and was rejected by the orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court against rejection of their representations.

¶8

Transfer is an incidence of service and no Government Servant holding transferable post can claim transfer/posting to a place of his/her choice. Moreover, attachment of a Teacher/Government Servant is made due to exigencies of work, at the discretion of the State

¶9

Government and no one has a vested right to be attached at a particular place.

¶10

In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the rejection orders, which are impugned in these writ petitions.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that policy of pick and choose has been adopted in the matter of attachment of teachers, those with right connections, are attached at place of their choice; while, request of the petitioners for attachment in view of their personal/ medical problem, is not being considered.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied upon Rule 16(1) of the Transfer Rules, 2013, which provides that in case both the spouse are Government employees, then as far as possible, both may be posted together.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met, if petitioners are permitted to make representation to the Competent Authority, who shall take appropriate decision thereupon, in accordance with law, within some stipulated time frame.

¶14

Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to make representation, in case their case is covered by the Transfer Rules of 2013 and Transfer Act of 2017, within two weeks from today. If such a representation is made, the Competent Authority shall examine the request made by the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law and take an appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of such representation along with certified copy of this order.

¶15

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶16

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 13.05.2019

¶17

Navin

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar and Others v. State Of Uttarakhand and 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

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Anil Singh Bharara and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Balveer Singh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Ram Vinod Saxena Vs Sukhdevraj Kukreja

Dilbag Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Pandey Vs State of Uttarakhand