Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 24795 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Tripti Dixit Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner who is lady teacher has applied for transfer on the ground of certain personal difficulties which she has detailed out in her application dated 20th January, 2018 addressed to third respondent who has passed the order impugned on a technical ground that once she has been given adjustment on the desired place, her claim cannot be considered for transfer to another place within period of 5 years of her posting.
This Court in Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017, Bibha Singh Kushwaha v. U.P. Basic Education, Board, Allahabad and others vide order dated 19.07.2017 has considered all these aspects of the matter and had held thus:
"It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated.
The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration.Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order.
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008.
Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
From perusal of the order impugned, this Court finds that there is no consideration of the grievance of the petitioner at the end of 3rd respondent except technical plea of 5 years ban in a sense a teacher cannot be held to be eligible to seek transfer within aforesaid period either of the initial posting or on preferred transfer posting.
Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for respondent could not also justify the order as it lacks consideration of the claim of the petitioner .
Under the circumstances, the order impugned dated 24th September, 2018 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the 3rd respondent to decide afresh considering the grievance of the petitioner as detailed out in her application dated 20th January, 2018 in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra). The decision in the matter shall be taken by 3rd respondent positively within period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
The writ petition is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Sanjeev