Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Anita Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 September, 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 4 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 21594 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANITA CHATURVEDI W/O SHRI UMESH
CHATURVEDI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/O. VILLAGE DAGA
GALWAL, POST GALWAR GUJARA, TEHSIL
RAMNAGAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SHREYAS PANDIT - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
SCHOOL EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH).
2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SATNA,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH).
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MOHAN SAUSARKAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENT/STATE )
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 passed by the District Education Officer Satna in file No./Transfer/2023/20-01DEO/Satna/135749, by which the petitioner who is working as Primary Teacher in Government Primary School Daga Rameshwar, District Satna has been transferred to GMS, Devri, District-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 9/8/2023 10:42:50 AM 2Satna.
2. It is fairly conceded by counsel for the petitioner that she has already spent a considerable long time of approximately 21 years at the present place of posting. The only contention is that in case, if the petitioner is compelled to go to transferred place then it will distrub the Pupil Teacher Ratio (PTR) because only one teacher would be left and thus, it will also adversely affect ongoing education of the students. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been transferred to a place which is approximately 100 km away from the present place of posting and her physical condition is not keeping well and therefore, it will be difficult for the petitioner to comply the transfer order.
3. Per contra, petition is vehmently opposed by counsel for the State. It is submitted that not only the petitioner has completed approximately 21 years of posting at present place but the State shall certainly maintain PTR and will not allow the school go teacherless.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as medical ailment of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has filed a copy of prescription dated 11.08.2023, which shows that immediately after suffering a transfer order, the petitioner had developed some medical complications. Another document which has been filed by the petitioner is the lab report. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has no history of medical ailment. So far as the transfer of petitioner to a place which is 100 km away from present place of posting is concerned, it is sufficient to mention here that the same cannot be a ground to cancel the transfer order. So far as the duty of the State to maintain the PTR under The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is concerned not only it has been submitted by counsel for the State that the PTR shall be maintained but it is duty of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 9/8/2023 10:42:50 AM 3 State Government to ensure that PTR is maintained. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to ensure that PTR is not disturbed and some body must be posted immediately if it has not been done so far.
6. At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has made a representation and therefore, the respondents be directed to decide the same and till then, the transfer order of the petitioner may be kept in abeyance.
7. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
8. 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.
9. 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 her joining may file an application for urgent hearing of her representation and if that is filed then the respondent shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.
10. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 9/8/2023 10:42:50 AM 4 JUDGE RC Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 9/8/2023 10:42:50 AM