SHOBHA RANI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade under Section 18B of the U. P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982. The appointment was duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Aligarh. She joined her duties on 1.7.1992 in S. R. Inter College, Aligarh, that is run and managed by the Zila Panchayat, Aligarh. The college is on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government and provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder is applicable to it. It is submitted that she has been continuously working as assistant teacher in the college and Regulation have been framed to regular the transfer of employees including teachers.

(3.) AT the time of admission, while entertaining the writ petition, the Hon'ble Court passed the following order on 19.5.1997 : "The matter was heard on 15.5.1997 and 16.5.1997, in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned standing counsel, appearing for the first two respondents. Let the 3rd and 4th respondents be also noticed personally as well as through registered post. All the respondents are to come up with their counter-affidavit within six weeks. Rejoinder-affidavit within a week thereafter and the matter be listed on 28.7.1997. On the question of an interim order of stay of the transfer orders as per Annexures-3 and 4 of the writ petition it was contended that rules in this regard speak of mu-tual transfer only and that too through a procedure indicated in the Rule 55 and onwards of Chapter 3. There being no provi-sions for transfer beyond these rules, the transfer orders could not be sustained. It appears that the same administration runs the two institutions within which the transfers have been directed. It is true that Rule 55 onwards do not speak of any other transfer then mutual ones, but there is nothing in the rule to bar a transfer. It was contended by the learned standing counsel that a transfer is an incident of service and there being no specific bar, a transfer could be ordered provided one is not pushed away to serve under a separate management, is a separate employer. The cases quoted in this regard spoke about mutual transfer and the necessities therefore, but had nowhere ruled that a non-mutual transfer was not permitted. Rather a decision of Hon'ble Justice S. R. Singh of this Court ruled that a transfer to another institution run by same administration was not barred under the law. It was stated that this order was challenged in Special Appeal No. 120 of 1995 and the Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Justice U. P. Singh and myself, had stayed the order of Hon'ble Justice S. R. Singh. A perusal of the stay order dated 6.3.1995, indicates that there was a direction for taking up the appeal along with another appeal for admission and for disposal at that stage. Awaiting final decision the order of the court below was stayed. This was only an interim direction and could not be read as a precedent at that stage. Moreover the order in Annexure-4 clearly indicates that the petitioner was relieved from his duties in the earlier institution of appointment with effect from 30.4.1997. No interim order need be recorded at this stage."