LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-37

TEJ KUMARI CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 20, 2005
TEJ KUMARI CHOPRA W/O SHRI DALJEET SINGH CHOPRA AND SMT. JAMMA ANDREW Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHTHROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF BASIC EDUCATION, ZILA BASIC SHIKSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions are challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 15.7.2005 primarily on the ground that the same is in violation of Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Services Rule, 1981 read with Sections 2 (e) and (f) and Section 9 -A of the Basic Education Act, 1972 and it is contended that the transfers orders have been given effect to without their consent as they have been transferred from " Nagar Chhetra" to " Gramin Chhetra" i.e. from the local urban area as defined under the provisions referred to herein above, to a rural area. It is urged on their behalf that the transfer orders being in complete violation of the aforesaid provisions, are liable to be set aside.

(2.) There is no dispute about the status of the petitioners, who are 14 in numbers in all the eight writ petitions and are employed as Asstt. teachers governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Teachers Services Rule, 1981. There is also no dispute about the fact that all these petitioners were appointees in a rural area i.e. Gramin Chhetra cadre. There is also no dispute.that these teachers are functioning in such Institutions, which were earlier in point of time within the rural area as defined under the aforesaid provisions.

(3.) The Institution in which all these teachers are functioning no falls within the geographical limits of Jhansi Municipal Corporation, which is a local urban area, as a result of the notification dated 7.2.2002 published by the State Government expanding the limits of the Jhansi Municipal corporation. The petitioners contend that since the Institution in which they are functioning is within the limit of Jhansi Municipal Corporation by virtue of the aforesaid notification, therefore, they are teachers in an area which is a local urban area and as such according to the provisions of Rule 21, they could not have been transferred from an urban area to rural area by the impugned order either without their requests or by their consent.