कोर्ट के माध्यम से अन्तर्जनपदीय ट्रांसफर हेतु प्रयासरत शिक्षकों को बड़ा झटका, मा0 न्यायालय ने की सभी याचिकाएं खारिज

कोर्ट के माध्यम से अन्तर्जनपदीय ट्रांसफर हेतु प्रयासरत शिक्षकों को बड़ा झटका, मा0 न्यायालय ने की सभी याचिकाएं खारिज

मा0 न्यायालय ने अंतर्जनपदीय स्थानांतरण सम्बन्धी तीन प्रश्नों पर दिया विस्तृत 51 पेज का आदेश

👉 क्या एक बार अन्तर्जनपदीय ट्रांसफर का लाभ ले चुके शिक्षक दुबारा ले सकते हैं लाभ?

👉 क्या नियम 8(2)(d) के अन्तर्गत ट्रांसफर एक अधिकार है?

👉 क्या एस्पिरेशनल जिलों से ट्रांसफर न किये जाने सम्बन्धी पॉलिसी सही है?

उपरोक्त प्रश्नों के उत्तर देखिये यहाँ:-

Question No.(a):- Whether restriction on inter-district
transfer has been validly imposed by the Government Order dated
13.06.2017 on teachers who have earlier taken benefit of inter-
district transfer? 
17. The arguments of learned counsels for the petitioners on this
question are wholly misconceived inasmuch as Government Order
dated 13.06.2017 as amended by Government Order dated 20.09.2017, was further amended by the afore-quoted Government
Order dated 05.02.2018, whereby the position as is existing under Rule
8(2)(d) has been reiterated and the restrictions imposed under the
Government Order dated 13.06.2017, have been withdrawn.
18. Since the Government Order itself has been amended by
the State Government and applications of all eligible candidates in
terms of the Rules have been considered, therefore, this question
does not survive.

Question No.(b):- Whether under Rule 21 of the Rules
1981 and Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules 2008, the assistant teachers
have a right for consideration of their transfer application or they
have a right of transfer?
19. It is settled law that transfer is not a right. As per Rule 4 of the
Rules 1981, the service cadre of the petitioners is the local area of the
respective district. Their appointing authority is the concerned District
Basic Education Officer. In view of Rule 21 of the Rules 1981, the
Assistant Teachers of basic schools run by the Board cannot be
transferred from rural local area to an urban local area or vice versa or
from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local
area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or
with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case, approval of
the Board shall be necessary. Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules 2008 also does
not confer any right for inter-district transfer. On the contrary it provides
that in normal circumstances, the applications of inter-district transfers
in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within
five years of their posting. However, an exception has been provided in
respect of female teachers that in special circumstances their
applications for inter-district transfer would be entertained to the place
of residence of their husband or in-laws’ district. Rule 21 read with Rule
8(2)(d) of the Rules 1981 clearly indicates that teachers have no right
for inter-district transfer.

The Board in transfer, has the
authority to frame the guidelines qua the way and manner it
has to conduct itself in the matter of effectuating transfer. On
account of reintroduction of Rule 21, the authority of the Board
to frame guidelines for effectuating inter-district transfer is not
at all diluted or restricted, as has been sought to be suggested.
Guidelines have been framed to maintain transparency and
rule out arbitrariness, so that one knows the contingency when
an incumbent can be transferred and the parameters of
exercise of authority. One of the function of Board is to control
the imparting of basic education, to exercise supervision and
control over the basic schools, and to take all such steps
necessary for discharge of any power. Once under the rules,
authority to accord approval, rests with the Board, then it has
all authority to frame guidelines to conduct itself. Guidelines in
question, in noway violate the Rules.”
28. In view of the above discussion, the question No.(b) is
answered as under:
Petitioners do not have any right for transfer or a right for
consideration of their application for transfer. Applications for
inter-district transfer may be entertained by the competent
authority only if such applications for inter-district transfer are
within the four corners of the provisions of the Rule 21 of the
Rules, 1981 read with Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 and the
guidelines framed by the Board for transfer.

38. In view of the aforesaid, the Question No.(c) is answered as
The petitioners working as Assistant Teachers in
Aspirational districts have no right for inter-districts transfer.
Petitioners do not have any legally protected or judicially
enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus for transfer
from the aspirational districts. Therefore, their applications for
inter-district transfer have been lawfully rejected in view of the
decision of the Board.

39. So far as the writ petition of the petitioners for transfer to
District Ballia is concerned, I find that transfer could not be made as
there was no vacancy. Since the petitioners - Assistant Teachers have
no right of transfer under the Rules, therefore, the writ petitions have
no merit.
40. In view of the above discussion, all the writ petitions fail and
are hereby dismissed.

Enter Your E-MAIL for Free Updates :   
कोर्ट के माध्यम से अन्तर्जनपदीय ट्रांसफर हेतु प्रयासरत शिक्षकों को बड़ा झटका, मा0 न्यायालय ने की सभी याचिकाएं खारिज Reviewed by sankalp gupta on 3:02 PM Rating: 5

Contact Form


Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.