Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5513 of 2021 Petitioner :- Abha Jain Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Chandra Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Bilas Yadav,Yogendra Singh Bohra
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1, Sri R.N. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and Sri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 27.12.2020 whereby her request for second inter-district transfer has been rejected on the ground that she has already taken the benefit of inter-district transfer.
This Court on 15.07.2021 passed the following order:-
"It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that dispute involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others).
Sri R.B. Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.3 prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instructions in the matter and apprise the Court as to whether the dispute involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021.
Put up as fresh on 30.07.2021."
Learned counsel for the respondents on instructions states that since under the Government Order option for inter-district transfer can be exercised only once, therefore, the application of the petitioner has been rejected as she has already exercised once the request for inter-district transfer.
However, learned counsel for the respondents could not place any material on record to demonstrate that the controversy in hand is not covered by the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021 (Ajay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others).
The relevant extract of the judgement of Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021 is being extracted hereinbelow:-
"In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter- district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.
With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.
If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer."
Thus, in view of the judgement of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No.419 of 2021, the reason assigned by the respondent-authority for rejecting the request of the petitioner for inter-district transfer in the impugned order is not sustainable in law and same is set aside.
The petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent no.3-Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra alongwith a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court, Allahabad duly certified by the learned counsel for the petitioner, raising all his grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case any such representation is filed by the petitioner, the respondent no.3 shall decide the same by reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months thereafter.
The writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.
Order Date :- 30.7.2021 Sattyarth