Heard learned advocates for the parties. The petitioner a primary teacher serving under respondent No.2 is aggrieved by the order dated l4th August, l996 whereunder, the petitioner has been transferred from primary school, Sultanpur to Primary School, Belda.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the said order has been made in contravention of the Government instructions issued on lst December, l994 and that the order has been made at the behest of respondent No.4 who is hostile to the petitioner.
2.In response to the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.2 has appeared and filed counter affidavit. It is denied that the impugned order of transfer has been made under the influence of or at the behest of respondent No.4. It is stated that respondent no.2 was not aware of the various activities carried on by the petitioner and that respondent No.2 was not aware of the complaints lodged against the petitioner. It is stated that several complaints were received against the working of the petitioner and in view of the suggestions made by the Education Inspector , proposal was made to the Director of Primary Education for permission to transfer the petitioner. In view of the said proposal, Director of Primary Education had issued his concurrence on 23rd July, l996 and in that view of the matter, the petitioner was transferred under the impugned order dated l4th August, l996. It is stated that the petitioner has been serving at the primary school, Sultanpur for last l6 years. In the circumstances, the impugned order of transfer cannot be said to have been made with malafide intention as alleged or in contravention of the instructions issued by the Government in this behalf.
3.Mr. Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's children are studying at Morbi and there being no facility for higher education at Belda, the petitioner will not be able to shift his children alongwith him. The place being at a distance of more than 100 kms., daily commutation is also not possible. He has further submittted that there are many vacancies in Malia Taluka on which the petitioner can be accommodated. In the circumstances, only indulgence that can be shown to the petitioner is that the petitioner may make a representation to respondent No. 2 to accommodate him at anyplace in Malia Taluka. If such representation is made, respondent No.2 may consider the same in accordance with law and if found conducive to the interests of the administration and the education, the petitioner may be accommodated at any place in Malia Taluka. Subject to the aforesaid direictions, this petition is summarily rejected. Notice is discharged.There shall be no order as to costs.
25.9.1996.[Ms. R.M.Doshit,J.] vyas