Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26852 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Ruchi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Kushwaha,Mahima Maurya Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking transfer, taking recourse to Section 8(2)(D) of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the principles on which the transfers/ adjustments have to be made have not been followed in her case and as to why the petitioner is prejudiced.
The Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view in the case of Smt. Shikha Singh and 24 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others in Special Appeal No.- 870 of 2018 decided on 4th October, 2018 that transfer and posting is not vested right while upholding the judgment of learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition against the adjustment/ transfer of such teachers. The Special Appellate Bench in the intra court appeal (supra) arising out of the said judgment finally observed thus:-
"At the cost of repetition, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 is only a relaxation clause and that in no manner creates any substantive enforceable legal right sufficient to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus.
So far as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 is concerned, suffice it to state that that too does not create any right in favour of the appellants. A plain reading of the Rule aforesaid makes it clear that this too is an exception to the general rule of not transferring a person from one district to other district in normal course.
In light of whatever stated above, the appeals lack merit, hence the same are dismissed."
I do not find that this case stands on any different footing than those of very petitioner/ appellant.
The writ petition is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 IrfanUddin