CHANDAN SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a chain transfer order dated 6th August 2010, 56 Officers in Class II in the Education Department have been transferred. Petitioner, who is also a Class II Officer and was working as a Principal of Government Inter College, Dinapani, (District: Almora), has been transferred by the said order as Principal of Government Inter College Gairsain, (District: Chamoli) with additional charge of Block Education Officer, Gairsain. In the post petitioner was holding, prior to his aforementioned transfer, by an order dated 4th August 2010 the private respondent holding a Class III post has been transferred with a direction upon him to assume charge as officiating Principal showing that the post is lying vacant. Petitioner contends that as on 4th August 2010, he was holding the post in question and, accordingly, in the said post by the order dated 4th August 2010, the private respondent could not be transferred. Petitioner further contends that in terms of the transfer policy, those who have been posted in a particular post for a long period of time should be transferred first, and there are four persons holding Class II posts have not been transferred despite they are holding their posts for a period longer than the petitioner. It was, therefore, contended that the transfer of the petitioner is hit by the provisions of the transfer policy. Petitioner also contends that according to the transfer policy, as far as practicable, the husband and wife, if employed in the same department, should be posted at the same place. It is the contention of the petitioner that his wife, who is an Assistant Teacher, is also posted within the same district where the petitioner was posted prior to the impugned transfer, but as yet, no step has been taken to transfer her. It is the contention of the petitioner that the same is also a violation of the transfer policy. Petitioner lastly contended that he made a representation, which has not been addressed to as yet.

(2.) Petitioner holds a Class II post and by the transfer order dated 6th August 2010, he has been transferred to a post in Class II. Thus, the status of the petitioner has not been interfered with in any manner whatsoever. It is not in dispute that the petitioner holds a transferable post and, accordingly, it is an exigency of service and as such petitioner would be transferred as and when situation therefor would arise. It is true that on 4th August 2010, the transfer order dated 6th August 2010 having not been issued, the post held by the petitioner prior to 6th August 2010 was not lying vacant and, accordingly, no question could arise on 4th August 2010 to supply the said vacancy. However, a look at the orders dated 6th August 2010 and 4th August 2010 would amply make it clear that an effort was being made to effect transfer of 93 persons, of which 56 were holding Class II posts and 37 Class III. There was, however, a mistake in dating the transfer orders. We would, accordingly, read the transfer order dated 4th August 2010, in so far as the post held by the petitioner is concerned, as 7th August 2010. In as much as the policy depicts that the husband and wife, as far as practicable, should work at the same place, we were about to request the State respondents to consider the transfer of the wife of the petitioner to a place nearby the place where the petitioner has been transferred by the order dated 6th August 2010, but considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner, being an Assistant Teacher in Kumaon region, cannot be transferred to Garhwal region, where the petitioner has been transferred by the order dated 6th August 2010, we do not make any such request to the State-respondents and instead request them to consider the representation of the petitioner as quickly as possible. Pendency of consideration of the representation, however, shall not be a ground for the petitioner not to join his transferred post.

(3.) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.