Heard Sri D.R. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4, Sri Vindhya Washini Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.6 to 9 and 11 & 12 and Sri J.B.S. Rathour, learned counsel for the opposite party No.10.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that more or less in the identical issue this Court has finally disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 18.01.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.1085 (S/S) of 2021; Smt. Vineeta Yadav vs. State of U.P. & others providing the liberty to the said petitioner to move a fresh application/representation to the authority concerned.
For convenience, the order dated 18.01.2021 in re: Vineeta Yadav (supra) is being reproduced here-in-below:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent - Board of Basic Education and Sri Prashant Arora, learned counsel for respondent No.4.
2. By means of present petition, the petitioner is alleging that she was granted appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school run and managed by Board of Basic Education. In pursuance to a scheme circulated by the department, she applied for transfer from one district to another. In the application form, the petitioner filled up transfer to urban area. When transfer list was published, name of the petitioner has not found place in the same. Thereafter, she moved an application for correction in the application form filled up for transfer from one district to another. Then she came to know that there is a mistake in the application form and on the place of rural, she has filled up urban area.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Clause 5 of the government order, it has been prescribed that in case there is some mistake in the application form like transfer from rural to urban area or urban to rural area, date of birth, date of appointment etc., the same can be corrected.
4. On a query made to learned counsel for the petitioner that whether some time limit has been prescribed in the government order / circular issued by the department for correction, he submitted that there is no time limit prescribed for making correction.
5. Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for Board of Basic Education invited attention of this court on clause 1 of the government order, wherein it has been provided that in case there is some mistake, the applicant would have approached the Assistant Regional Director of Education to correct the mistake. He also pointed out that thereafter a circular was issued on 22.09.2020, wherein time limit for making correction was prescribed and in accordance with that correction would have made till 30.09.2020.
6. It is not case of the petitioner that she applied for correction within time limit specified in the government order as well as in the circular issued on 22.09.2020. Her case is that after publication of list of transfer of teachers, her name does not find place therein and she inquired in the matter and upon inquiry she came to know that in the application form by inadvertent mistake she filled up urban.
7. Under Rule 21 of 1981 Rules, it has been prescribed that transfer of the teachers cannot be made from rural to urban or urban to rural areas without approval of the Board.
8. In the opinion of this court, the mistake committed by the petitioner is a general phenomena. While filling up the application form, such type of mistake can be committed by anyone. Thus, in the interest of justice, one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to approach the department, who will considered the claim of the petitioner and shall pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order.
9. Accordingly, this petition is finally disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh application ventilating all her grievances within a period of two weeks from today. In case such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate reasoned and speaking order shall be passed within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order."
The grievance of the present petitioners may also be redressed if they prefer fresh representation to the authority concerned in terms of the liberty being given by this Court in re: Smt. Vineeta Yadav (supra), therefore, this writ petition is decided finally, at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to move afresh representation ventilating their grievances to the opposite party No.4 taking all pleas and grounds which are available with them enclosing therewith all the relevant documents in support of their claim within a period of two weeks from today. In case such representation/ application is preferred by the petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided by the opposite party No.4, strictly in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order with expedition preferably within a period of one month from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioners forthwith.
In view of the aforesaid terms, the writ petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Suresh/ [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]