JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Subhash Singh Yadav Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.K. Anwar Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. Petitioner is working as Headmaster in Primary School, Arangi, Block Barhami, District Chandauli. He is aggrieved by an order of transfer dated 19th July, 2006, whereby he has been transferred to Primary School Kakrait in the same Block Barhani of the district Chandauli.
3. In the opinion of the Court such orders of transfer, which have effected tranfer from one Primary Institution to another within the same block/district, do not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, since various contentions have been raised by the petitioner for the purposes of challenging the order of transfer, it is appropriate to deal with the aforesaid contentions in seriatum.
Contention No. 1- It is contended that in view of the policy decision of the State Government dated 9th June, 2004. the petitioner, who has already attained the age of 58 years, could not be transferred.
4. The contention so raised by the petitioner is totally misconceived. Under the Government Order dated 9th June, 2004 absolute bar has been placed on transfer of a Headmaster, who has attained the age of 58 years. The relevant Clause 7 read as follows:
7- ,sls v/;[email protected]?;kfidkvksa dk [email protected];kstu ;Fkk lEHko u fd;k tk;] tks fuEufyf[kr esa ls de ls de ,d 'krsZa iwjh djrs gksa% d& ftudh vk;q 58 o"kZ ls vf/kd gks] [k& vfookfgr efgyk A x& og f'k{kd tks pyus fQjus esa vleFkZ gksA ?k& og f'k{kd tks dSalj] ân;jksx tSls vlk/; chekjh ls xzLr gksa ijUrq bl laca/k esa fdlh ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls izek.k&i= izkIr djuk gksxkA lgk;d v/;[email protected]/;kfidkvksa dh inksUufr fnukad 10-6-2004 rd dj yh tk;A blds i'pkr lgk;d csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkfj;ksa ls [email protected];kstu ds izLrko 15 twu ls 25 twu rd izkIr dj fy;s tk;A blds i'pkr budk ijh{k.k dj ftyk LFkkukUrj.k lfefr ls vuqeksfnr djkdj vkns'k tkjh dj fn;s tk;saA 15 tqykbZ ds i'pkr dksbZ Hkh [email protected];kstu fcuk lfpo csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds vuqeksnu ds ugha fd;s tk;asxs A
5. Simple reading of the said clause would establishe that normally transfer of teachers, who have attained the age of 58 years, as far as it is possible, may not be made, but there is no absolute bar in such transfer. It may also be noticed that the said the said policy decision dated 9th June, 2004 was made applicable qua the academic year, 2004-05. So far as academic year 2005-06 is concerned, a separate Government Order dated 17th July, 2005 was issued. For the present academic year, during which the petitioner has been transferred i.e. 2006-07, no policy guidelines have been brought on record by the petitioner.
Contention No. 2. In view of the policy guidelines dated 9th June, 2004 petitioner could not have been transferred after 15th July without obtaining prior permission of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad.
6. The aforesaid contention is also totally misconceived;
(a) under the order of transfer dated 19th July, 2006 it has specifically been recorded that the transfer is being effected with reference to the letter of the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad dated 31st May, 2006 and the approval of District Level Committee constituted for the said purpose.
(b) The said policy guidelines dated 9th June, 2004 are in respect of academic year 2004-05 only. No policy guidelines for the academic year 2006-07 have been brought on record by the petitioner. Therefore, reliance placed upon the letter dated 9th June, 2004 and 17th June, 2005 are totally out of context.
Contention No. 3. lastly it is contended that the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 50635 of 2004, whereunder a similar order of transfer issued one 10th November, 2004 had been stayed. Since the interim order still continues, the respondents are not justified in transferring the petitioner in the current academic session also.
7. The contention so raised by the petitioner is totally misconceived inasmuch as the order of transfer, which was subject matter of consideration in Writ Petition No. 50635 of 2004, has lost efficacy with the issuance of order of transfer, for the current academic session 2006-07, dated 19th July, 2006. Therefore the interim order, which was obtained by the petitioner in the year, 2004 cannot be the basis for questioning the transfer order which has now been issued. Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.