Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15079 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Ganesh Kumar Verma,Nitin Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Nitin Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arun Kumar who appears for the Basic Education Officer and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents rejecting his application for inter district transfer in terms of the provisions made in the Government Order of 02 December 2019. As page-88 of the paperbook would indicate, the reason assigned by the respondents was of disciplinary proceedings being pending against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings are no longer pending and had since culminated in an order of punishment in respect of which a statutory appeal has been preferred. It is in that backdrop that learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by a learned Judge in Gauri Singh v State of U.P. And 3 Others [Writ-A No. 8473 of 2020 decided on 18.11.2020] to submit that the pendency of an appeal would not amount to disciplinary proceedings being viewed as continuing or subsisting.
The Court notes that to the above extent, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner would appear to be correct and also find support from the conclusions recorded by the learned Judge in Gauri Singh.
However the Court takes note of Clause 1(क) of the Government Order which reads thus:-
"1(क). ऐसस ननयनमत पपरष नशकक जज अपनस ततननतत /कनयररत जनपद मम नययनतम 3 वषर कक एवव मनहलन नशनककनएव जज अपनस ततननतत/कनयररत जनपद मम नययनतम 01 वषर कक सनतजषजनक ससवन पयरर कर चपकक हज एवव उनकस नवरद पयवर मम सवसससत नकसत नवभनगतय कनयरवनहत मम उनहम दसणणत न नकयन गयन हज, वस अनतजरनपदतय ससननननतरर आवसदन करनस कस पनत हहगस ।"
As is manifest from a reading of that clause, teachers who have been inflicted punishment as a disciplinary measure are in any case disentitled from seeking inter district transfer. While the reason ascribed by the respondents as evidenced from a perusal of page-88 may appear to be mistaken, it does not detract from the admitted fact of the petitioner undergoing a punishment and as a consequence of which he in any case stood disqualified under the clause aforementioned. It is thus manifest that even if the impugned order were to be quashed, no effective relief can be accorded to the petitioner in view of the provision made in the Government Order and referred to above. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds no ground to interfere.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 faraz