JOJIANA LAKRA Vs. NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATIONAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has called into question the transfer order dated 19.05.2006. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant on temporary basis with the respondent on 22nd June, 1998. She was promoted as Section Officer vide office order dated 22nd April, 2004 On 19.5.2006, the petitioner came to know that she was being transferred to Bangalore. She made a representation on the same day. Its relevant portion runs as follows :-

(2.) The respondent has hotly contested this petition. It is objected that the Courts and Tribunals generally do not interfere with the order of transfer unless the same is actuated by malafide or in violation of any law. National Council for Teacher Education i.e. the respondent was formed under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 with a mandate to achieve planned and co-ordinated development of the teacher education system through the country, the regulation and proper maintenance of norms and standards in the teacher education system and for matters connected therewith. Section 20 of the said Act contemplates that the Council shall by a Notification constitute 4 Regional Committees situated in different parts of the country. Such Committees were accordingly situated one each (1) the Eastern Regional Committee at Bhubaneshwar, (2) Western Regional Committee at Bhopal, (3) the Northern Regional Committee at Jaipur and (4) the Southern Regional Committee at Bangalore. Under the mandate of the NCTE Act and the policy of Government of India for increasing the literacy rate, there is huge requirement of school teachers. Private sector educational institutions are coming up fast in Teacher Education Sector. It is pointed out that whenever an employee is promoted to a higher post, he/she can be transferred to inter region or from region to Head Quarter and vice-versa. Since 1998 the petitioner was not transferred to any other place. In the public interest and for the administrative exigencies she was transferred to Bangalore and was relieved from Delhi on 23.05.2006 to join and report at Bangalore. Three officers in the grade of Section Officers, including the petitioner, who have never been posted outside Delhi were included in the chain of transfer effected through the impugned order dated 19.05.2006. Again, Smt. Mamta Kukreti, a divorcee, single parent, who has been serving the organisation at Bangalore despite having a minor daughter, who has been staying with her parents in Delhi as her daughter is suffering from repeated bouts of respiratory tracts infection and sinusitis and the doctor had advised that climate of Bangalore is not suited to the child. She made a representation to the department for her transfer to Delhi. Her request was accepted and she was transferred from Bangalore to Delhi. Again her father is also a heart patient. He has been meeting the NCTE authorities for early transfer of his daughter to Delhi. There are 12 posts of Section Officers in the whole of NCTE, out of which 4 posts are at NCTE headquarter in Delhi and 2 each are at the four Regional Offices. Respondents cannot keep six Section Officers against the four sanctioned posts as two officers would be without work whereas the pay and allowances can be drawn against the sanctioned posts only. The petitioner had prior knowledge that a transfer order was in the offing. Possibly because of that reason she had gone on leave.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. the learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions. The respondent does not have any transfer rules. It has no policy, the transfer order has to be passed within the ambit of above said Memorandum OM No. 28034/2/97-Estt(A). The petitioner has child aged about 4 years and she should be allowed to stay in Delhi. On the contrary, Mamta Kukreti does not have a good case. The medical certificate submitted by her was given by an Ortho. The relevant portion of the medical certificate runs as follows:-