JAI PRAKASH NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner is a disabled person and he sought his transfer and on the writ petitioner's personal representation, the petitioner's case for transfer from Primary School. Gopalpur. Anchal Thakur Gangti, district-Godda to Upgraded Middle School, Jamua. district-Godda was considered and vide order dated 30.6.2009. the petitioner was transferred. However, at the transferred place, there was No. vacant post, therefore, vide order dated 11.11.2009. the petitioner was posted at Middle School Deobanda, Anchal Poralhat, district-Godda itself. The said order dated 11.11.2009 was passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda. The petitioner, in pursuance of the said order dated 11.11.2009. joined at the School at Deobanda. Anchal Poralhat, district-Godda, and he continued till he received the order dated 29.9.2010, a copy of which has been placed on record at Annexure-3 to the memo of petition. By this order dated 29.9.2010, the petitioner's transfer order has been cancelled on the ground that the District Superintendent of Education had No. Jurisdiction to make adjustment so as to post the writ petitioner at different school vide order dated 11.11.2009. The petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring writ petition being W.P.(S) No.. 2063/2011, which has been dismissed vide order dated 6.6.2011; hence this L.P.A. has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Godda. is No. t a transfer order but is only a order of posting" for which he was competent under the Rules. It is also submitted that the transfer order, which has been given effect to. stands exhausted and thereafter the transfer order could No. t have been cancelled subsequently to the joining of the writ petitioner at the transferred place even while, he has been posted in a different school. It is also submitted that, without admitting, assuming for the sake of arguments, that the District Superintendent of Education was No. t competent to pass the order of posting, even then, competent committee should have corrected their own mistake of transferring the petitioner at a place where post was No. t vacant and whether because of availability of the post at the place where he is working, a fresh transfer order should have been passed as on 30.6.2010 reason for the petitioner's transfer was found just and proper.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the District Superintendent of Education had No. jurisdiction to transfer one Teacher from one school to aNo. ther school as has been done in this case. It is also submitted that the competent authority took a decision on 23.9.2010 and cancelled the transfer order, which has been done because of the reason that the writ petitioner could have been posted in the area, where he is a resident, and therefore, the writ petitioner could No. t have been posted there outside his area of residence. It is also submitted that the order of posting of the District Superintendent of Education is absolutely illegal and void.