1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of order dated 07.11.2012 passed by this Court in Writ A No.48572 of 2012:Smt. Rajni Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and others, and also the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by Writ Court in Writ Petition No.6185 (S/S) of 2020: Rajni Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and others.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the petitioner had filed a writ petition which writ petition was clubbed together with other writ petition and taken up together and disposed of by this Court's order dated 07.01.2012. The grievance of the petitioners was that they had been performing duties as Assistant Teacher in Senior Basic School and Junior Basic School for a long time and they were seeking transfer from one district to another on the basis of the 13th Amendment to the Rules notified in 2011. The petitioners submitted their options before 31.12.2011 but their case was not considered. In the transfer list that was published on 31.08.2012, petitioners' names were not shown. This Court after hearing the counsel for the parties had disposed of the petition with the observations that although it has been contended that Ms. Rajni Goyal could not have been transferred to Lucknow as she belongs to 2003 batch and teachers of 2002 batch alone have been accorded permission, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit bringing to the notice of the Court that the petitioner belongs to 2002 batch.
4. This Court found that the reason assigned for not transferring the petitioner to Lucknow was non existent and therefore, directed the Secretary Basic Siksha Parishad in consultation with the Secretary Basic Education to consider afresh the petitioner's case for transfer and finalize the transfer proceedings strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the seniority status as well as district opted by the incumbent and also the order of preference given by her within two months.
5. In compliance of this Court's order dated 07.11.2012, the Secretary Basic Siksha Parishad passed an order on 17.05.2013 saying that after the 13th Amendment inter-District transfer as per Rule 21 would be applied online. The petitioner's application had been considered and in terms of seniority she has been given transfer on her second option of District Raebareilly and the petitioner has also joined on 01.09.2012 in District Raebareilly. Since she was not senior enough, her case shall be considered in future when such applications are again invited for inter-District transfer.
6. The petitioner submitted online application for inter-District transfer for Academic Session 2019-2020 and then filed a Writ Petition No.6158 (S/S) of 2020 praying for her consideration. It appears that on the first day of hearing itself on 04.03.2020, this Court recorded the argument made by Sri Ajai Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Basic Siksha Adhikari, that a schedule had been published on 20.02.2020 according to which all applications would be decided by 30.04.2020.
7. The Court disposed of the petition with the observation that no further orders were required to be passed in the matter as respondents would be deciding the applications of the petitioner positively by 30.04.2020.
8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a copy of the writ court's order was served upon the opposite party but they have not decided the application till date.
9. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing counsel, on the basis of instructions states that application for academic session 2019-2020 has already been decided and the petitioner has knowledge of the same as she has filed a copy of the decision at page -37 of the paper book.
10. This Court has perused page-37 of the paper book. The petitioner's application has been rejected and the reasons given for such rejection of the petitioner's case for transfer to Lucknow District have been stated as her case not being covered under paragraph-15 of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019.
11. Additionally, the information filed at page-37 also shows that the petitioner has given choices of posting in her application and no vacancy was available in the districts were she had given her choices.
12. No Willful disobedience of this Court's order dated 07.11.2012 and 04.03.2020 has been made out for this Court to initiate proceedings under Section12 against the opposite parties.
13. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Rahul