Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 19 July, 2024
Author: Prakash Padia
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:114987 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10317 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.2, 3 & 4.
2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers :-
"i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras purportedly passed on the decision of the District Level Committee Hathras so far as the petitioner is concerned.
ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned Inter-District Mutual Transfer dated 20.05.2024 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras, so far as the transfer of the petitioner is concerned.
iii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner to join in the transferred school since he was withdrawn his consent for mutual transfer much before the transfer order was passed."
3. Aggrieved against the order of transfer dated 18.06.2024 passed by District Basic Education Officer, Hathras/respondent no.4, petitioner has preferred present writ petition.
4. It is admitted between the parties that in identical situation judgement has already been delivered by this Court on 05.07.2024 in Writ A No. 9446 of 2024 (Anita Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), which reads as follows :-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the following prayers:-
(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and calling the records of the case of the impugned order dated 22.06.2024 issued by the Block Education Officer, Gulauthi, District Bulandshahr whereby, petitioner has been directed to be relieved from her respective Composite School Chirawa, Block Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr as a result of Mutual Inter District Transfer.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioner to be relieved from her respective Composite School Chirawa, Block Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr in terms of the transfer order dated 19.06.2024 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj.
(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to keep the petitioner posted as an Assistant Teacher in her respective Composite School Chirawa, Block Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr without causing any interference in her working as an Assistant Teacher in the aforementioned composite school.
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that pursuant to the Government Order dated 02.06.2023 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P. Lucknow, by which a policy has been introduced for mutual transfer of teachers namely Mutual Inter District Transfer. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher in District Bulandshahar and respondent No.5/Pragati Yadav who is working as Assistant Teacher in District Aligarh submitted their Online Application for their mutual transfer. Pursuant to the aforesaid Online Application filed by the petitioner and the respondent No.5 for their transfer with mutual consent, transfer order has been passed by the Authorities concerned on 19.06.2024 by which they have been transferred to each other place and reliving order has been passed on 21.06.2024. Pursuant to the reliving order dated 21.06.2024, the petitioner has not completed the reliving formalities, a letter dated 22.06.2024 has also been written by the Block Education Officer, Gulaothi, Bulandshahar to the petitioner to comply with the order dated 21.06.2024 and complete the formalities of reliving. Aggrieved with the letter dated 22.06.2024, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. It is argued by Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision taken by the respondents allowing the Online Application is illegal in view of the Clause 2(5) and 2(14) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023. Insofar as Clause 2(5) is concerned, Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 18 of the petition which reads as follows:-
"18. That the petitioner would have got ready to be relieved from the District Bulandshahr, if the process of mutual inter district transfer would have concluded within time, in fact the proceedings of Mutual Inter District Transfer has got delayed as the transfer order has been issued by the Secretary U.P., Basic Education Board, Prayagraj on 19.06.2024, despite the fact that the Government order dated 22.06.2023 issued by the State Government specifically provided under Clause 2(5) that the proceedings of mutual inter district transfer and inter district transfer would run parallel and the same would be concluding in the same time period, due to huge delay occurred in concluded the process of mutual inter district transfer, circumstances of the petitioner has got drastically changed for the reason that petitioner has made an investment on the basis of saved money of her salary by purchasing a piece of land in the month of January, 2024 on which she is determined to get a house constructed which falls in District Hapur which is nearby district to District Bulandshahr having distance of about 35 K.M."
5. Insofar as Clause 2(14) is concerned, Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph 15 of the petition which reads as follows:-
15. That petitioner doesn't want to relieve from her respective Composite School for the reason that clause_2(14) of the Government order dated 02.06.2023 specifically provided that the transferred teacher has to be relieved from the concerned district to the transferred district where the allotment of the schools would be done on the basis of Government order dated 20.08.2022 which provides the allotment of the schools on the basis of preference which would be taken firstly from the disabled teachers, secondly from female teachers and lastly from the male teachers but now the respondents are compelling the petitioner to be relieved for submit joining in the Primary School Lohgarh No. 2 Block Atrauli, District Aligarh where respondent No. 5 is working, which was not mandated in clause 2(14) of the Government order dated 02.06.2023.
6. On the basis of the same, it is argued by Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the letter written by the respondents to complete the formalities of reliving is bad in the eyes of law.
7. On the other hand, Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that basic order by which the transfer has been done on mutual consent, i.e., order dated 19.06.2024 has not been challenged in the petition and the letter which has been challenged in the present petition, i.e., letter dated 22.06.2024, is a consequential letter and unless & until, the order dated 19.06.2024 has not been set aside, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a judgement of Division Bench of this Court passed in Special Appeal No.325 of 2024 (Shubhangi Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on 24.04.2024 in which identical controversy was involved and the petition filed by the petitioner (Shubhangi Rastogi) was dismissed which was under challenged in the special appeal and special appeal was also dismissed and prays that the present petition be also dismiss. It is informed by Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents that pursuant to the order dated 21.06.2024, the respondent No.5 has already been relieved and since the petitioner has not complied with the reliving order, she was attached with the office of District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahar.
8. In reply to the same, it is argued by Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not aggrieved with the order dated 19.06.2024 and she is only aggrieved with the letter dated 22.06.2024. It is argued that letter in question has been issued in violation of Clause 2(5) & Clause 2 (14) of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. From perusal of the record, it transpires that pursuant to the Online Application with mutual consent submitted by the petitioner, order of transfer dated 19.06.2024 has been passed by the authorities concerned. Thereafter a letter dated 21.06.2024 was issued to the petitioner to complete the formalities for her reliving from the Institution where she is working on or before 22.06.2024. Despite the same, the petitioner did not complete the formalities, another letter dated 22.06.2024 has been written by the Block Education Officer which is under challenge in the present petition. The Court is of the firm opinion that letter dated 22.06.2024 is a consequential proceedings and unless & until, the petitioner will not challenge the transfer order, no relief could be granted.
11. In case is the petitioner is not aggrieved against the order of transfer dated 19.06.2024, the Court is of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner has chosen only to challenge the consequential order dated 22.06.2024 by which only direction was given to submit necessary papers and documents and complete the formalities for her reliving from the Institution where she was working.
12 In the case of Shubhangi Rastogi (supra), following order was passed by Division Bench of this Court on 24.04.2024 :-
1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsdl for the petitioner/appellant and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by leanrned Single Judge in Writ-A No.3782 of 2024 (Shubhangi Rastogi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) as well as the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 3418 of 2024 (Km. Sweta vs. State of U.P. and others). The order dated 05.03.2024 which is quoted as under for ready reference:-
"1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shrestha Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner cannot be allowed to sail on two boats. On one hand, she has taken advantage of transfer policy to apply for mutual transfer which was accepted and now she wants to resile from it by giving excuse, which is not permissible. Once an order has been passed on application for mutual transfer that cannot be withdrawn. There is no circumstance exist to interfere with impugned order.
3. However, petitioner will have liberty to join at transferred place on commencement of new academic session since present academic session is about to end. In case of default, concerned respondent is at liberty to take action against petitioner in accordance with law.
4. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of."
3. After substantial arguments, the Court declines to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is well considered order under the mutual transfer policy.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner states that the present appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.
5. In view of above, the special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
13. From perusal of the same, it is clear that since the identical controversy has already been dealt with by this Court, no relief could be granted to the petitioner on this ground also. Insofar as the Clause 2(5) and Clause 2(14) are concerned, the aforesaid clauses are not under challenged, therefore, no relief could be granted to the petitioner.
14. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the petition lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
15. Since the present petition is dismissed, the petitioner is directed to join the transfer place immediately and without any further delay. In case of default, the authorities concerned are at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law."
5. Since the controversy is identical with the case of Anita (supra) hence present petition is also dismissed, however, petitioner is directed to join the transfer place immediately and without any further delay. In case of default, the authorities concerned are at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.7.2024 Pramod Tripathi