KANCHAN JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are not inclined to interfere with the common judgment and order appealed against in these appeals for the reasons indicated below.

(2.) PETITIONERS (appellants herein) were appointed as L.T. Grade teachers in different schools against sanctioned strength. As such L.T. Grade teachers, appellants were entitled to impart education up to Class - X. A few primary schools, scattered over the State, were upgraded to High Schools requiring appointment of L.T. Grade teachers. Instead of appointing L.T. Grade teachers, some L.T. Grade teachers already in employment in different schools, were purported to be transferred and, accordingly, appellants were also transferred. While effecting such transfer, the Government order dated 5th August, 2010 was totally ignored, where it had been provided that for upgraded schools, appropriate arrangements must be made locally, and in consequence thereof, L.T. Grade teachers were transferred from one district to another district for purported accommodation of upgraded schools. The fact remains that there are thousands of L.T. Grade teachers in the State and of them, a substantial number are working in remote parts of the State. Significantly, only a few chosen were given benefit of this transfer, so that they can be transferred to those schools, where the locations of the schools are suitable, being on the plain areas. Before effecting such transfer, it was not even thought, what will happen to the students, for whom petitioners were appointed in L.T. Grade, and in which schools they were appointed. The subject transfers, appear to us, are absolutely malafide and aimed at reaching unjust benefits to the persons sought to be transferred for they were to be transferred at places, which are easily accessible without any hardship and better suited topographically. The principal action taken to set at knot those transfers was the existing prior decision of the Government not to effect such transfers from one district to the other, but to make arrangement locally. We find no reason, therefore, to interfere with the orders, which have been passed to put back those transferees to the places fromwhere they had been transferred.

(3.) IN the writ petition, many a jargons on the basis of letters dated 12th October, 2011 and 31st January, 2012 and the Uttarakhand Annual Transfer for Public Servants Act, 2011 and the repeal thereof, were put forward, but those are of no use to the petitioners. The fact remains that the original transfer orders, which the petitioners want us to uphold, being malafide and contrary to a pre -existing decision of the Government, the judicial review court will not interfere.