BHAVNABEN JAYANTILAL PATEL Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who were serving as Primary Teachers under the respondents. Since the issue involved for determination in all three petitions is similar, they are being decided by a common judgment.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of these petitions are detailed herein-below. (1) In Special Civil Application No.9958 of 1993,the petitioner was serving at Satharia Primary School,Taluka Meghraj and she was transferred to Rayan-no-mal Primary School, Taluka Modasa at her own request, on the ground as stated by her, that there was an excess of teachers at Satharia Primary School. The transfer was effected by order dated 17.7.1993 of the respondent No.1. The petitioner, in pursuance of this order, moved to the new place of transfer alongwith her family and household articles. However, within less than a month the respondent No.1, cancelled the earlier order vide his order dated 12.8.1993. Being aggrieved by this action of the respondent No.1, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.8317/93 in this Court. This Court, vide order dated 19.8.1993 directed the petitioner to make representation to respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was directed to consider the same sympathetically and the petitioner was allowed to serve at the place of transfer until 10 days after the communication of the decision, if the same went against her. Accordingly, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 30.8.1993 to the respondent No.2. The petitioner was given a personal hearing on 16.9.1993. Th respondent No.2, vide order dated 16.9.1993, rejected the representation of the partitioner on the ground that there was a deficiency of 13 teachers in Taluka Meghraj whereas there was a surplus of 33 teachers in Taluka Modasa. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner to Primary School Rayan-no-mal in Taluka Modasa stood cancelled. After the decision of the representation by respondent No.2, as above, the respondent No.1 passed order dated 16.9.1993 to the effect that the cancellation of the transfer of the petitioner to the Primary School, Rayan-no-mal in Taluka Modasa stood as before. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders,the petitioner preferred present writ petition.

(3.) Heard Shri K.B.Pujara, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application Nos.9873 and 9958 of 1993 and Shri C.B.Dastoor, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.9902/93 and Ms.Nandini Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner have assailed the cancellation of the transfers on the ground that the respondents have disregarded the position regarding excess and surplus of teachers in the relevant Schools and have cancelled the transfers of the petitioners, which have already been implemented, in total disregard of the above fact. It is alleged that the respondents have cancelled the transfer orders of the petitioners in order to accommodate some other persons. There was no administrative reason or exigency for the cancellation of such transfers and this action has caused serious hardship to the petitioners. It has also been contended that the rejection of the representations of the petitioners is in contravention to the orders passed by this court. Lastly it has been contended that under Section 24(i) of the Bombay Primary Education Act,1947 the respondent No.1 alone is vested with the statutory power of making transfers of Primary Teachers subject to the general instructions issued by respondent No.2. It is, therefore, not open to the respondent No.2 to pass individual and specific order with regard to any teacher as has been done in the present cases.