JAYDEEP PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order contained in Memo no.789 dated 24.6.2016, four petitioners have approached this Court praying to quash the same. All the petitioners are presently posted as Assistant Teachers in the Project High School in the district of Singhbhum West. The petitioners no.1 and 3 are posted in Project High School, Khuntpani whereas petitioners no.2 and 4 are posted in the Project High School, Kiruburu. An order was passed on 24.6.2016, vide Memo no.789 (impugned order) whereby these four petitioners were transferred to different Project High School. The petitioners no.1 and 2 have been transferred to the Project High School, Jhilruwan, the petitioner no. 3 has been transferred to Project High School, Serengada while the petitioner no.4 has been transferred to Project High School, Ghorabandha. The petitioners have challenged the said order of transfer.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that since they are working in the Project High School where they are at present posted, as such, they could not have been transferred by the impugned order. He further submits that the ground for transfer as set forth over the impugned order, is for rationalisation of the teacher which had to be done in several Project High School. This necessitated the transfer, but, in fact, even after transferring these petitioners, rationalisation could not take place. He further submits that on earlier occasion in the year 1991 in respect of petitioners no.1 and 3, the order of transfer was stayed/cancelled by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, and as their services still now have not been regularized, the petitioners cannot be transferred. Lastly, he submits that the petitioners no.1 and 4 are due to superannuate in the month of Jan., 2018 whereas petitioners no.2 and 3 will superannuate in the month of Jan., 2019 and in that view of the matter, the transfer order is absolutely bad.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the transfer order has been passed after the decision has been taken by the District Education Establishment Committee and pursuant to the said order, the petitioners have been transferred. He further submits that the said committee, undoubtedly, has jurisdiction and authority to transfer the petitioners. Counsel for the State, supporting the transfer order, submits that to rationalisation the number of teachers in schools, it was decided to transfer Assistant Teacher from one place to another and that has been done without any mala fide intention. Lastly, he submits that the petitioners have failed to show any ground to interfere with the transfer order and thus, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.