NANIBEN HARIBHAI PATEL Vs. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed for the purpose of challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 16.07.2018 whereby the petitioner has been transferred on account of administrative exigency.

(2.) Mr.N.H.Sheth, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has mainly contended that bare look at the order suggests that this is nothing but against the principle of interest of justice as without granting any opportunity to the petitioner this should not have been effected. It has further been submitted that on page:24 to 25 there are essential grievance against the management and not against the petitioner and petitioner could not have been made scapegoat of the situation. Mr.Sheth, learned advocate has further submitted that the petitioner is disable person and certificate is also attached to the petition compilation at page:54AA showing permanent 60% disability in overall and as such human approach could have been shown by the authority. However, the action of the authority reflects arbitrary and capricious action which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No other submissions have been made.

(3.) To meet with the stand taken by learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate has drawn attention of the authority to the detailed affidavit-?in-?reply explaining the circumstances reflecting in paras:2,3 and 5 and has submitted that this is merely administrative exigency which has necessitated the authority to transfer, in any case. It has been submitted that reply was also taken pursuant to the physical inspection which took place after grievance voiced out by the village people. On the contrary, on account of the action of the petitioner the administration of the school has been at peril. Resultantly, there was no other option for management but to take such decision. Mr.Munshaw, learned advocate has further submitted that it is not the case that the petitioner has been thrown entirely at a different district but has been transferred in the same Taluka at nearby place of 47 km and petitioner's husband is also retired who is having habit of interfering with the administration of the school. Consideration of transfer was overall administrative decision in the interest of the school management. As a result of this, this cannot be said to be penal transfer in any form. So far as violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, the petitioner was well aware about her conduct at the relevant point of time and pursuant to physical inspection adequate opportunity at length has been provided and inquiry about the conduct was undertaken. In view of this situation, this order cannot be said tobe penal in any form in its strict form.