Madhya Pradesh High Court
Uday Singh Nagar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 20927 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
UDAY SINGH NAGAR S/O SHRI AMAR SINGH NAGAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT
TEACHER, POSTED GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL
NAKBADA, HARDA, DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA ARYA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH SCHOOL
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE
SECRETARY, VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
THROUGH COMMISSIONER DIRECTORATE
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION GAUTAM NAGAR BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER HARDA
DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SWATI ASEEM GEORGE - DEPUTY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10/08/2023, by which petitioner has been transferred from GPS Nakbada to GPS Siyaram Baba Kuti, District Harda.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 22-Aug-23 7:16:43 PM 22. Petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Teacher (LDT). It is fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has completed his normal tenure of 3 years at the present place of posting. It is the contention of petitioner that as per information available on portal, there are only three sanctioned posts of LDT in GPS Siyaram Baba Kuti and all the three posts are filled up and therefore, it is submitted that petitioner has been sent to a place where there is no vacant post of LDT. It is further submitted that in case if the petitioner is transferred from Nakbada then only one teacher would be left which would disturb the Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR) as required under Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.
3. Per contra, it is submitted by counsel for the State that transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he/ she should be posted at a particular place. By referring to Annexure-P/2, it is submitted that as per this information there are three sanctioned posts which are filled up but one has been transferred and there will be one new posting. It is submitted that this detail itself clearly shows that out of three sanctioned posts one teacher has been transferred and accordingly, petitioner has been posted in GPS Siyaram Baba Kuti. So far as question of maintaining PTR is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for the State that State shall ensure that PTR is not disturbed which is otherwise required to be maintained under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. From Annexure-P/2, which is the details available on portal, there are three sanctioned posts of LDT in GPS Siyaram Baba Kuti and according to the said information, all the three posts are filled up and as per further information one teacher has been transferred and there will be one new posting. Thus, it is clear Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 22-Aug-23 7:16:43 PM 3 that out of three teachers one has been transferred and petitioner has been posted in his place. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner has been transferred to a School where there is no vacant post of LDT.
6. S o far as the question of maintaining PTR is concerned, it is for the respondents to ensure that PTR, as required to be maintained under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, is maintained. Transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place. Petitioner has already spent more than three years of his normal tenure at the present place of posting. No malafides have been alleged.
7. At this stage, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has filed a representation which has not been decided so far, therefore respondents may be directed to decide the same and till then the transfer order of the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.
8. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
9. A Division Bench of the Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2015 MP 2556 has held that mere filing of a representation does not give rise to a vested right and it is the prerogative of the employer to stay or not to stay the transfer order during the pendency of the representation. In case if the transfer order is not stayed by the employer then it has to be executed by the employee. Accordingly, it was held that in absence of any vested right, the High Court should not pass an interim order thereby staying the execution of transfer.
10. Since the petitioner has not joined at the transferred place, therefore, at present, no direction can be issued to the respondents to decide the representation. However, it is made clear that the petitioner after submitting his Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 22-Aug-23 7:16:43 PM 4 joining may file an application for urgent hearing of his representation and if that is filed then the respondents shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.
11. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE shubhankar Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 22-Aug-23 7:16:43 PM