RACHANA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present bunch of writ petitions, interpretation of clause 4 of a transfer policy for inter district and mutual transfer issued by a government order dtd. 2/6/2023 for teachers working in school run by Basic Shiksha Parishad is under consideration. The said clause is reproduced below -: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_132_LAWS(ALL)1_2024_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned Advocate for petitioners along with S/Sri Seemant Singh, Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh, K.R. Singh, Sikhar Trivedi, Neeraj Shukla, Kamal Kumar Kesharwani, O.P.S. Rathore, Vibhu Rai, Navin Kumar Sharma, Pratik Chandra, Man Bahadur Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Shashi Kant Mishra, Prathamesh Upadhyay and Suresh Singh for petitioners have submitted that petitioners have been denied from consideration of their applications to transfer at desired district on the ground that there are no vacancy for incoming transfer. Crux of their argument is that interpretation and determination of calculation of 10% of vacancy and to declare zero vacancy for incoming transfer in certain districts is not only contrary to the object of transfer policy but based on incorrect interpretation of referred clause also.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that in a district, if teachers are working more than sanctioned strength, they are also included for determination of 10% of posts available for transfer and accordingly, State has calculated that since there are already surplus teachers, therefore, there will be no incoming transfer but they have allowed outgoing transfer. In a way they have tried to accommodate illegal appointment above than sanctioned posts.