Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahendra Pal Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 January, 2018
1
W.P. No.23083/2017
(Mahendra Pal Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Others)
15/01/2018
Shri Neeraj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
With consent, heard finally.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the list prepared by the respondents whereby petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Rampur Block Aron District Guna to Primary School Ganeshpura Block Bamouri District Guna and thereafter in second list he has been shown to be transferred to Primary School Biroli Block Bamouri District Guna in pursuance to the rationalization policy adopted by the State Government.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, State has issued a policy/ circular dated 11/04/2017 (Annexure P/4) in respect of the Education Department and decided to transfer the teachers to maintain the equilibrium in the schools. District Authority has issued the said circular to transfer the surplus teacher on the basis of strength of the students, on which objection was raised by the petitioner in which he expressed his disability. It is further submitted that without properly addressing the objections preferred by petitioner, petitioner has been posted to a distant place from his present place of posting, which amounts to harassment and is arbitrary and illegal.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that clause 8 of the policy/ circular dated 11/04/2017 itself contemplates the provisions of appeal, therefore, alternative remedy of appeal is provided to the petitioner. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended with the petition.
Dispute involved in the present case is factual in nature which could not be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The policy itself provides the remedy of appeal before the 2 W.P. No.23083/2017 (Mahendra Pal Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. State of M.P. & Others) Collector of the concerned district which has not been availed by the petitioner therefore, in view of the fact that the policy of rationalization is meant to give effect to the mandate of fundamental right under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India and to further the object of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 as well as the fact that policy itself provides a mechanism for ventilating the grievances of the teachers and no useful purpose would be served to issue notice to the respondents therefore, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the Collector as provided under Clause 8 of the policy. If the petitioner prefers an appeal along with stay application as well as certified copy of this order, then the Collector concerned shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order over the application as well as in appeal.
Thus, petition stands disposed of with aforesaid liberty, but looking to the nature of the controversy since status and posting place of petitioner is not clear, it is hereby directed that the Collector shall decide the appeal within thirty days from the date of presentation of the appeal.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak) Judge Anil* ANIL KUMAR CHAURASIYA 2018.01.18 13:48:18 +05'30'