JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabartl, J.
1. This writ petition was filed challenging the transfer order dated 12.11.1997 at Annexure-1 to the writ petition whereby the petitioner had been transferred from Primary Pathshala Rabara, Bhatwari to Primary Paihshala Bhangali. district Uttar Kashi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said impugned order is illegal in view of the provision of law prevailing which is not permit any transfer of the petitioner unless the petitioner gives her consent to such transfer. It is contended that the challenge of the petitioner in respect of the impugned order is a question of law. Therefore, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents also agreed to final disposal of the writ petition at this stage without filing counter-affidavit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to various provisions of law, including the Rule 21 of U. P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules. 1981 and contended that the said Rule 21 is the only provision relating to transfer of such teachers and therefore, there being no power of transfer provided either by statute or by relevant rule, the impugned order of transfer is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Government Order relied on by the respondents cannot provide the power of transfer when statute itself or Rules framed thereunder do not provide any such power to transfer teachers. Further contention has been made on behalf of the petitioner that even if power is provided the same is to be exercised by the District Basic Education Officer as he is the appointing authority under rules in respect of teachers and therefore the policy framed by the other authority providing for transfer of the petitioner is illegal.
4. In support of such contention learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the case of Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 and Purtappur Company Limited v. Cane Commissioner and others, AIR 1970 SC 1896. It has been contended that the power given by statutory provision to a particular authority can be exercised only by the said authority and not by any other authority.
5. Mr. A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the transfer is an incident of service and for such transfer no provision is required. It is also contended that Rule 21 makes a specific bar in respect of particular aspect and it does not cover the whole subject of transfer. Learned counsel also referred to Section 13 of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972 for the purpose of showing that the State Government has full control over the basic education of the State and the Government Orders issued from time to lime are fully applicable by virtue of provision of said Section 13. Learned counsel also referred to Section 10 of the said Act for the purpose of showing the powers of Zila Basic Shiksha Samiti and a reference was made in particular to clauses (a) and (g) of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act. It has been contended that the present adjustment of teachers is in public interest and such adjustment by transfer of teachers in the interest of education may not be interfered by this Court as ordinarily transfer orders are not interfered and the law in this connection has been referred to as decided in the case of Shilpi Base v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 : Smt. Asha Kumari Misra v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. Kanpur. 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1120 and Onkar Nath Sharma v. State of U. P. and another, in 1994 (1) ESC 194. Learned counsel also produced Government Policy as contained in the Government Orders Issued from time to time dated 10.11.1997 and 20.11.1997 and other Government Order issued from time to time following the aforesaid policy.
6. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the present case the Government has taken a policy for transfer of some teachers by adjusting them in other institutions in the district by Government Order dated 10.11.1997 upon considering the fact that in the institution near the cities in this State, there are teachers more than the standard prescribed and as a result in the institutions at far off places there are teachers less in number than the prescribed standard and the same affects the education in those institutions.
7. Apparently the said Government Order was issued as it was found that in spite of directions, position was not being improved and the education was being affected. Therefore, the present policy was introduced by the Government for the purpose of adjustment/transfer of the teachers for bringing balance in the strength of teachers in conformity with the strength prescribed. Further direction was issued by the authorities of the Basic Shiksha Parishad following those Government Orders for the purpose of their implementation. It appears that the impugned order was passed in course of implementation of the said policy.
8. It is apparent that the standard as regards number of teachers required in institution was earlier decided and its implementation was being insisted by Government from time to time and, therefore, in course of implementation the present transfer order was passed by the District Baste Education Officer. Uttar Kashi transferring the petitioner.
9. On a perusal of the statutory provision, it appears that Section 13 of the said Act gives sufficient power to the Government for the purpose of efficient administration and undoubtedly the present purpose is with the intention of efficient administration.
10. With regard to the power of transfer, I am of the opinion that the transfer being an incident of service, for providing power to transfer, no specific provision is required. This view is also supported from the provision of Rule 21 which provides only a bar in respect of particular aspect of transfer. Unless general power of transfer is in existence, such a bar in respect of one aspect of such transfer becomes meaningless and statutory provision should not be so interpreted. No case has been made out in the present case that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of Rule 21.
11. With regard to the authority. I find that the Government Order has been issued by the State Government for the purpose of efficient administration and the same is covered by the power provided under Section 13 of the said Act. The impugned order admittedly was passed by Basic Education Officer and, therefore, there is no violation of any statutory provision.
12. Admittedly, the policy prescribing the standard has not been challenged here and, therefore, the Government Order merely for the purpose of implementation of the said policy cannot be challenged in the manner it has been done.
13. In view of the aforesaid findings. I do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order of transfer and the writ petition is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.