Chattisgarh High Court
Chowaram Dhidhi vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors on 13 May, 2016
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
Writ Petition (S) No.1273 of 2016
Smt. Geeta Sukhdeve Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others
W.P.(S)Nos.1337/2016, 1335/2016, 1299/2016, 1305/2016, 1301/2016, 1321/2016,
1320/2016, 1332/2016, 1329/2016, 1325/2016, 1328/2016, 1322/2016, 1330/2016,
1323/2016, 1324/2014, 1327/2016, 1326/2016, 1344/2016, 1372/2016, 1364/2016,
1366/2016, 1357/2016, 1365/2016, 1355/2016, 1368/2016, 1489/2016, 1384/2016,
1381/2016, 1400/2016, 1411/2016, 1382/2016, 1385/2016, 1390/2016, 1412/2016,
1383/2016, 1395/2016, 1410/2016, 1406/2016, 1408/2016, 1407/2016 1405/2016,
1419/2016, 1413/2016, 1409/2016, 1415/2016, 1418/2016, 1416/2016, 1424/2016,
1545/2016, 1425/2016, 1544/2016, 1540/2016, 1427/2016, 1426/2016, 1447/2016,
1449/2016, 1435/2016, 1443/2016, 1437/2016, 1440/2016, 1438/2016, 1439/2016,
1446/2016, 1442/2016, 1444/2016, 1441/2016, 1485/2016, 1483/2016, 1509/2016,
1505/2016, 1527/2016, 1520/2016, 1521/2016, 1524/2016, 1522/2016, 1517/2016,
1518/2016, 1530/2016, 1526/2016, 1512/2016, 1507/2016, 1511/2016, 1515/2016,
1525/2016, 1510/2016, 1519/2016, 1529/2016, 1549/2016, 1547/2016, 1542/2016,
1548/2016, 1550/2016, 1543/2016, 1546/2016, 1276/2016, 1280/2016, 1281/2016,
1432/2016, 1451/2016, 1453/2016, 1454/2016, 1455/2016, 1456/2016, 1457/2016,
1458/2016, 1459/2016, 1460/2016, 1461/2016, 1463/2016, 1464/2016, 1465/2016,
1466/2016, 1467/2016, 1469/2016, 1470/2016, 1471/2016, 1472/2016, 1473/2016,
1474/2016, 1475/2016, 1476/2016, 1478/2016, 1479/2016, 1480/2016, 1481/2016,
1482/2016, 1492/2016, 1493/2016, 1494/2016, 1495/2016, 1496/2016, 1497/2016,
1498/2016, 1499/2016, 1500/2016, 1501/2016, 1503/2016, 1508/2016, 1513/2016,
1514/2016, 1552/2016, 1553/2016, 1555/2016, 1556/2016, 1558/2016, 1559/2016,
1560/2016, 1561/2016, 1562/2016, 1563/2016, 1564/2016, 1565/2016, 1566/2016,
1567/2016, 1568/2016, 1569/2016, 1570/2016, 1571/2016, 1574/2016, 1575/2016,
1577/2016, 1578/2016, 1581/2016, 1584/2016, 1585/2016, 1586/2016, 1587/2016,
1588/2016, 1589/2016, 1592/2016, 1594/2016, 1595/2016, 1597/2016, 1598/2016,
1599/2016, 1600/2016, 1601/2016, 1602/2016, 1603/2016, 1604/2016, 1605/2016,
1606/2016, 1607/2016, 1608/2016, 1609/2016, 1610/2016, 1611/2016, 1612/2016,
1613/2016, 1614/2016, 1615/2016, 1617/2016, 1619/2016, 1620/2016, 1623/2016,
1624/2016, 1627/2016, 1628/2016, 1630/2016, 1633/2016, 1634/2016, 1635/2016,
1636/2016, 1640/2016, 1644/2016, 1645/2016, 1647/2016, 1648/2016, 1649/2016,
1651/2016, 1654/2016, 1655/2016, 1659/2016, 1661/2016, 1664/2016, 1665/2016,
1666/2016, 1668/2016, 1669/2016, 1670/2016, 1671/2016, 1672/2016, 1673/2016,
1674/2016, 1675/2016, 1676/2016, 1677/2016, 1678/2016, 1679/2016, 1681/2016,
1684/2016, 1686/2016, 1689/2016, 1690/2016, 1692/2016, 1694/2016, 1695/2016,
1699/2016, 1700/2016, 1709/2016, 1710/2016, 1713/2016, 1714/2016, 1715/2016,
1716/2016, 1717/2016, 1719/2016, 1722/2016, 1727/2016, 1728/2016, 1729/2016,
1732/2016, 1733/2016, 1734/2016, 1735/2016, 1737/2016, 1738/2016, 1739/2016,
1740/2016, 1741/2016, 1742/2016, 1744/2016, 1746/2016, 1748/2016, 1750/2016,
1751/2016, 1752/2016, 1753/2016, 1754/2016, 1755/2016, 1756/2016, 1757/2016,
1758/2016, 1759/2016, 1760/2016, 1761/2016, 1762/2016, 1765/2016, 1766/2016,
1767/2016, 1768/2016, 1769/2016, 1771/2016, 1772/2016, 1779/2016, 1782/2016,
1783/2016, 1784/2016, 1785/2016, 1786/2016, 1787/2016, 1790/2016, 1791/2016,
1794/2016, 1800/2016, 1801/2016, 1802/2016, 1803/2016, 1804/2016, 1805/2016,
1806/2016, 1808/2016, 1809/2016, 1810/2016, 1811/2016, 1812/2016, 1813/2016,
1815/2016, 1822/2016, 1826/2016, 1827/2016, 1828/2016, 1829/2016, 1830/2016,
1831/2016, 1834/2016, 1835/2016, 1839/2016, 1840/2016, 1842/2016, 1843/2016,
1844/2016, 1851/2016, 1367/2016
Single Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Motion
13/05/2016Mr. Dhani Ram Patel, Mr. Wasim Miyan, Mr. C.B. Kesharwani, Mr. Kamal Kishore Patel, Mr. A.K. Yadav, Mr. K.P. Sahu, Mr. Vikram Singh, Mr. B.D. Guru, Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Mr. H.S. Patel and Mr. Somkant Verma, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Y.S. Thakur and Mr. Arun Sao, Deputy Advocate Generals for the State. These batch of writ petitions have been admitted for final hearing. Notices have been issued. Returns have been not filed. Let return be filed within four weeks.
Heard on the application for grant of interim relief.
This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the writ petitioners herein who are working as Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) with Janpad Panchayat(s), Raigarh and Sarguja, against their transfer. By the impugned order dated 18-4-2016 they have been transferred from Zila Panchayat, Raigarh to Zila Panchayat, Kabirdham, Mungeli, Janjgir-Champa and Korba; and some of the petitioners have been transferred from Zila Panchayat, Surguja to Zila Panchayat, Balrampur-Ramanujganj and Baloda Bazaar-Bhatapara by order dated 5-4-2016.
The main ground of challenge is that the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Zila Panchayat has no right, authority and jurisdiction to make the order of transfer to the jurisdiction of Janpad Panchayat of other Zila Panchayats i.e. Inter-District transfer is not permissible by virtue of the Rule 27 contained in the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Service (Recruitment and General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the Rules of 1999').
Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners would submit that the Chief Executive Officers have absolutely no jurisdiction and authority to make the order of transfer from Janpad Panchayat of one district to Janpad Panchayat of other districts and it is not contemplated under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1999. They would further submit that an amendment was incorporated by notification dated 30.11.2012 in the Rules of 1999 conferring power to the Commissioner-cum-Director (Panchayat) to transfer any employee of the Panchayat Services working with the Zila Panchayat from one Zila Panchayat to other Zila Panchayats in the State by Commissioner-cum-Director Panchayat and in case of such transfer, seniority of the transferred employee shall not be affected, but surprisingly, that proviso has been repealed by notification dated 1- 12-2015 published in the Government Gazette on 11-12-2015 and therefore, the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat is absolutely without jurisdiction and without authority of law. In addition, they would also submit that the petitioners have completed seven years of service on the post of Assistant Teacher and they are likely to be promoted on the post of Teacher (Panchayat) and for which the process has already been initiated and on transfer, their service conditions including promotional opportunities are likely to be seriously affected and as such, the impugned orders of transfer be stayed, in the interest of justice.
On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposing the prayer of interim relief in favour of the petitioners would submit that under the schedule enacted under Sections 19 & 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short 'the Act of 2009'), the norms and standard for a school has been provided, which has to be maintained including pupil-teacher ratio. They would further invite the attention of this Court to Rule 22 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') which provides for maintaining pupil-teacher ratio and submit that the teachers in excess of sanctioned strength have to be deployed failing which they are liable for disciplinary action under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010 and to implement the Act of 2009 and the rules made thereunder, a committee has been constituted in district level under the rationalization scheme to sort out excess teachers and to bring pupil-teacher ratio in accordance with the Act of 2009 and the rules made thereunder and thereafter, in accordance with the recommendation of these committee only in the districts of Dhamtari, Kanker, Raigarh and Surguja, surplus teachers have been found and on such recommendation, the impugned transfer has been made and Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) are being accommodated to the nearby Zila Panchayats to districts where the posts are lying vacant. Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010 and Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules of 1999 confer power to the local authorities to re- deploy excess Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to Janpad Panchayats of other districts where the post of Assistant Teacher are lying vacant. The entire exercise has been made in accordance with the Rules of 2010 and the Rules of 1999, in public interest. They also submit that if those Teachers are allowed to remain in the place where they are, it will be in violation of the Act of 2009 and the Rules of 2010 and there will be great financial difficulty even in making payment of salary etc., as such, the application for interim relief deserves to be rejected.
Mr. Y.S. Thakur would also bring to the notice of the Court that in earlier round of litigation i.e. W.P.(S) No.4174/2015 (Dileep Kumar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) etc. and other connected matters which are today listed for final hearing, the writ petitioners therein have challenged the order of transfer from Zila Panchayat, Dhamtari to Zila Panchayat, Raipur, Kanker to Durg and Rajnandgaon, and interim relief application has been rejected by this Court in those writ petitions by order dated 18-11-2015. The petitioners herein are similarly situated and therefore, they are not entitled for interim order, that order has attained finally.
At this stage, Mr. Mateen Siddiqui would point out that first and second provisions of clause (ii) of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1999 were withdrawn from 1-12- 2015 and present orders of transfer have been passed thereafter.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties on application for interim relief.
The petitioners principal contention in the batch of writ petitions is that the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat has no power and jurisdiction to transfer Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) to Janpad Panchayats of other districts as inter-district transfer is not permissible by virtue of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1999 and on such an illegal transfer their promotional opportunities are also likely to affected, whereas it is the case of the State that in order to comply with the provisions of the Act of 2009, particularly norms and standards of schools prescribed under Sections 19 & 25 of the said Act, to maintain pupil-teacher ratio as mentioned and Rules 2010 made thereunder. In Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010 read with the schedule enacted under Sections 19 and 25 of the Act of 2009, and in compliance of the rationalization policy, Assistant Teachers (Panchayat) have been declared surplus in four districts i.e. Raigarh, Surguja, Dhamtari and Kanker, and in order to accommodate their services to other districts and to maintain norms and standards of schools and to maintain pupil-teacher ratio, their services have been transferred consistent with the provisions of the Act of 2009 read with Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010. Therefore, with an object to comply the provisions of the Act which is mandatory in character such an inter-district transfer has been made which is in accordance with law.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after considering their submissions, particularly considering the provisions of Sections 19 & 25 of the Act of 2009 which the Act of 2009 has mandated the the State Government and local authority to ensure pupil-teacher ratio as specified in the schedule enacted under Sections 19 and 25 of the Act of 2009 and Rule 22 of the Rules of 2010, and norms and standards for school, and the facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the fact that in other batch of writ petitions namely W.P.(S)No.4174/2015 (Dileep Kumar Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) etc. transferring Assistant Teacher (Panchayat) from Dhamtari to Raipur and Kanker to Durg in which this Court has declined to grant interim relief, this Court is not inclined to entertain and grant interim order in this batch of writ petitions also. Accordingly, the applications for grant of interim relief are rejected.
List these matters for final hearing in the week commencing 4th July, 2016.
Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma