Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Singh Raghuwanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 November, 2015
1 WP.3208/2015
Santosh Singh Raghuavnshi & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
23.11.2015
Shri S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Govt. Advocate for the
respondents / State.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who are teachers and who have been declared as surplus and transferred to those schools where there is shortage of teachers. They are aggrieved by the policy order dated 08.09.2014 framed by the State Government.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued before this Court that Rules have been framed in exercise of power conferred under The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 known as The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. They are applicable in the State. As per Rule 12 and 13 of the Rules, 2011 there is a School Management Committee and School Management Committee is entitlted to prepare the plan for school development meaning thereby depending upon the requirement of teachers in a particular school. However, the State Government has framed a policy which is contrary to the statutory provision as contained under the RTE, Act and the Rules.
2 WP.3208/2015Santosh Singh Raghuavnshi & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that State Government has framed policy only with a view to ensure smooth functioning of school and also to ensure proper teacher-student ratio in each and every school. However, posting of teachers in schools is particularly in the domain of State Government and by no stretch of imagination the School Development Committee be permitted to transfer of a teacher.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned policy has been issued in consonance with the RTE Act and Rules. The District Education Officer is the competent authority to transfer the teachers. He can transfer the teacher where there is shortage of teachers. Not only this, a systematic procedure has been provided for transfer of teachers. Not only this, there is provision of appeal under the policy framed.
In the light of aforesaid, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the policy decision. Hence, admission is declined. Respondents are directed to decide the representation of the petitioners within a 3 WP.3208/2015 Santosh Singh Raghuavnshi & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with representation.
(S.C. Sharma) (D.K. Paliwal)
Judge Judge
sarathe