1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present petition has been filed to challenge the transfer order dated 29.5.2015 and the consequential order dated 7.10.2016 of respondent no.3 - Joint Director of Intermediate/Secondary Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur whereby the respondent no.7 has been transferred and has been allowed to join the institution managed by the petitioner - Committee of Management.
3. At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised as to the delay and latches. Undisputedly, the present writ petition has been filed with a delay of 1405 days. The explanation for the same has been given in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition whereby it has been stated that the petitioner acquired knowledge as to the ground of challenge, only in April 2020. It has been submitted that respondent no.7 had originally been appointed as an Assistant Teacher at a minority institution. In absence of any enabling law, he could not have been transferred to a non-minority institution. In any case, he was first posted at another institution at Vilhaur. However, he was subsequently posted at the petitioner's institution. Since the petitioner has now come to know of these facts, the delay, if any, in filing the writ petition is not fatal.
4. In short, it has been submitted that the illegality vitiates the entire proceedings and, therefore, a challenge now raised may be entertained.
5. Having considered the preliminary objection so raised, it cannot be lost sight that the petitioner is a Committee of Management of an institution where respondent no.7 had offered to join in October 2016 and he was allowed to join by the Committee of Management on 7.10.2016. Also, it is not in dispute that the respondent no.7 has been continuously working at the petitioner-institution since then. More than four years have passed.
6. In view of such fact, the latches of 1405 days cannot be overlooked. This being discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is not obliged to correct each and every error, even if that may exist. Insofar as the petitioner had itself allowed the respondent no.7 to join the institution and work for more than 4 years, the challenge raised is found to be belated and perhaps made for some collateral reason which the Court is not inclined to examine in it's discretionary writ jurisdiction.
7. It may also be noted that the original and present order of transfer are not alleged to be forged or fabricated, rather those orders were passed by the competent statutory authority. Thus, there is no warrant to go behind those orders at such belated stage.
8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 Prakhar