Breaking News - यू पी के शिक्षक महिलाओं, विधवा शिक्षिकाओं को ससुराल या पति के स्थान पर ट्रांसफर देने में कोर्ट से मिली विशेष राहत ,
सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को भी एक दुसरे के स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली कोर्ट से बड़ी राहत , न्यूनतम सेवा काल जरुरी नहीं रहा
देखें तीन फैसले -
1. विधवा महिला को ट्रांसफर देने में कोर्ट का राहत भरा निर्देश :-
2. महिला को ससुराल के नजदीक ट्रांसफर में मिली राहत
3.सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली राहत
*********************************
1. विधवा महिला को ट्रांसफर देने में कोर्ट का राहत भरा निर्देश :-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31322 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sakshi Chaudhary
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Shukla,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal on behalf of Basic Education Officer.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, she is working in the Primary School Pajaba, Development Block Puranpur, district Pilibhit. Development made in this regard, she is widow, she has made an application for� transfer to District Meerut. It is contended on her behalf that the petitioner has some personal difficulties, which she has mentioned in para 9 to 11 of the writ petition in this regard. She has made a representation for her transfer. Such representation is on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Rules, 2008, there is condition requiring three years experience for the transfer.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Amit Shukla for the Basic Education Officer.
The Rule 8(2)(d)� has been considered by this Court in Bibha Singh Vs. U.P. Basic Education Board and others, Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017.
In the present case, the petitioner, who is a widow and her father has also died, is seeking her transfer on the ground of her personal difficulties and for redressal of her grievance she has made a representation to the second respondent, a copy of the same is on the record.
Having due regard to the fact that the petitioner is a widow and she has small child, in my view, her application be considered in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Appropriate Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably� within two months from the date of communication of this order.
Order Date :- 5.9.2017
A.P. Pandey
****************************
2. महिला को ससुराल के नजदीक ट्रांसफर में मिली राहत :
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43071 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vineeta Ajwani(Vineeta Gangwani)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Majahar Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School at Farrukhabad managed and conducted by the U.P. Board of Basic Education. She is stated to have been appointed on 14.8.2014. Due to her medical condition, the petitioner sought medical leave from 21.11.2015 to 14.3.2016.
Her grievance is that her husband is working in District Kanpur hence she may be transferred at the same place. Earlier, when her representation was not considered, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2958 of 2017, which was disposed of on 20.1.2017 by issuing a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's request for transfer. In compliance thereof, the respondent authority by the order impugned dated 12.7.2017 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner has not completed three years services as she was appointed on 14.8.2014 hence she is not entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 23.6.2016, wherein it is provided that the request for the transfer can be considered only when the teacher has completed three years services on or before 31.3.2016.�
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 8(2)(d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 (for short, "the Rules, 2008) provides certain contingencies in which applications for inter-district transfers of female teachers can be entertained. It is further stated that the Government Order dated 23.6.2016 cannot override statutory provisions. He has placed reliance on the orders of this Court passed in similar facts in the case of Gunjan Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 35370 of 2017 and Poonam and others v. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 32028 of 2017.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri S.K. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. Since no factual aspect is involved in the matter which requires reply from the respondents, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
From the facts of this case it is evident that the petitioner's husband is working in District Kanpur and the petitioner is posted at Farrukhabad.
Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 which deals with the posting of teachers reads thus:
"8(2)(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter- district transfers in respect of male and felmale teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district." � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ����������������������������������������������������� (emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid Rule does not require that husband of the petitioner must be a teacher or in Government employment. It simply mentions the place of residence of husband or in-laws' district. To my mind the intention of the Rule-making Authority is that the couple may remain at same place. In the policies of Central Government as well as State Government, it is provided that an endeavour shall be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place.
Regard being had to the fact that in Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 in addition to place of residence of husband, in laws' district has also been included which makes the intention of the Rule-making Authority very clear and obvious.�
In the case at hand this aspect has not been considered by the authority concerned and he has simply rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that she has not completed requisite number of years as mentioned in the Government Order dated 23.6.2016.
This Court in the case of Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017, Bibha Singh Kushawaha Vs. U.P. Basic Education Board and others has considered this issue and has held that the Government Order dated 23.6.2016 shall not override statutory provisions of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008.�
After careful consideration of the matter, for the reasons mentioned above, I find that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 are contrary to law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent-Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made herein-above, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.9.2017
Digamber
******************************* 3.सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली राहत , ऑनलइन आवेदन जरुरी नहीं :
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30808 of 2017
Petitioner :- Bibha Singh Kushawaha
Respondent :- U.P.Basic Education,Board,Allahabad And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She is presently posted at Junior Basic School, Umar Khan-Ka-Tola, Padrauna, District Kushinagar. Her husband is posted at Junior Basic School, Ekwari, Gadhwara, Ballia. Both the institutions are conducted and run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education (for short, "the Board"). She has made a representation for her transfer from Kushinagar to Ballia, where her husband is posted as Assistant Teacher. A copy of her application is on the record as annexure-4 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 deals with the posting and transfer of the teachers working in Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools run by the Board.
The Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers can be entertained of only those teachers who have completed five years of their posting, however, the exception is provided that an application of a female teacher for her transfer at the place of her husband or in-laws would be entertained.�
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner is directed to submit on-line application in terms of Government Order dated 3.5.2017, in that event the petitioner would not be eligible for transfer as she has not completed five years of requisite service.�
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.B. Dixit v. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 83.
Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer submits that the State Government has issued guidelines on 13.6.2017 in respect of inter-district transfer of the assistant teachers of Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools for the session 2017-18. He further submits that on-line applications would be accepted from 7th to 20th August, 2017 and the procedure has been laid down under the said guidelines.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The Rule 8(d) provides as under:
"(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district."
From a reading of the aforesaid Rule it is evident that under the special circumstances an application of a female teacher can be entertained for her transfer at the place of residence of her husband or in-law's district. In such cases the requirement of five years of posting has been relaxed.
It is a well settled law that the Government Order cannot supplant the law, it can only supplement it. Indisputably, an executive order cannot override the Rules which have been framed by the rule making authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Act. In case of any inconsistency with the delegated legislation, executive instructions or the Government Order, the Rule cannot be ignored. The same issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in R.B. Dixit (supra) in the following terms:
"6. We have held in Smart Chip v. State of U.P., 2002 (49) ALR 419, that in every legal system there is a hierarchy of norms as noted by the eminent jurist Kelson in his Pure Theory of Law. In the Indian Legal System this hierarchy is as follows:
1. The Constitution.
2. Statutory law, which may either be made by the Parliament or by the State legislature.
3. Delegated legislation, which may be either in the form of Rules, Regulations or Statutes made under the Act.
4. Executive instructions or Government Orders.
7. In the above hierarchy if there is conflict between a higher law and a lower law then the higher law will prevail. The executive instructions are part of the fourth layer in the hierarchy, which is at the lowest level, whereas an Act is part of the second layer and the Statutes made under the Act are delegated legislation and hence part of the third layer. The letters dated 31.8.1998 and 30.3.1999 are only executive instructions and hence they belong to the fourth layer. Hence they are neither Act nor Statutes. Hence in our opinion the age of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of technology is 60 years and not 62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the decision in Raja Ram Verma's case."
This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Sarita Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 7096 of 2010, decided on 30.7.2010. The Court had occasion to deal with the similar arguments and at that time a Government order was issued imposing certain restrictions on transfer. The Court has expressed its view in the following terms:
"The ban is general in nature. However, the provision of transfer for the purposes of placing husband and wife in the same district is a special provision which will normally prevail upon general temporary restriction on transfer.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad is directed to decide the matter ignoring the ban order dated 6.6.2009. The decision shall be taken positively within three weeks from today."�
It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated.
The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration.�Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order.
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008.
Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.�
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.7.2017
Digamber
*********************************
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को भी एक दुसरे के स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली कोर्ट से बड़ी राहत , न्यूनतम सेवा काल जरुरी नहीं रहा
देखें तीन फैसले -
1. विधवा महिला को ट्रांसफर देने में कोर्ट का राहत भरा निर्देश :-
2. महिला को ससुराल के नजदीक ट्रांसफर में मिली राहत
3.सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली राहत
*********************************
1. विधवा महिला को ट्रांसफर देने में कोर्ट का राहत भरा निर्देश :-
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 31322 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sakshi Chaudhary
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shantanu Khare,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Shukla,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel and Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jaiswal on behalf of Basic Education Officer.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher, she is working in the Primary School Pajaba, Development Block Puranpur, district Pilibhit. Development made in this regard, she is widow, she has made an application for� transfer to District Meerut. It is contended on her behalf that the petitioner has some personal difficulties, which she has mentioned in para 9 to 11 of the writ petition in this regard. She has made a representation for her transfer. Such representation is on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Rules, 2008, there is condition requiring three years experience for the transfer.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Amit Shukla for the Basic Education Officer.
The Rule 8(2)(d)� has been considered by this Court in Bibha Singh Vs. U.P. Basic Education Board and others, Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017.
In the present case, the petitioner, who is a widow and her father has also died, is seeking her transfer on the ground of her personal difficulties and for redressal of her grievance she has made a representation to the second respondent, a copy of the same is on the record.
Having due regard to the fact that the petitioner is a widow and she has small child, in my view, her application be considered in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Appropriate Authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by issuing a direction upon the third respondent to consider the cause of the petitioner and pass the appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously preferably� within two months from the date of communication of this order.
Order Date :- 5.9.2017
A.P. Pandey
****************************
2. महिला को ससुराल के नजदीक ट्रांसफर में मिली राहत :
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 43071 of 2017
Petitioner :- Vineeta Ajwani(Vineeta Gangwani)
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Majahar Ali
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shashi Kant Verma,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in a Basic School at Farrukhabad managed and conducted by the U.P. Board of Basic Education. She is stated to have been appointed on 14.8.2014. Due to her medical condition, the petitioner sought medical leave from 21.11.2015 to 14.3.2016.
Her grievance is that her husband is working in District Kanpur hence she may be transferred at the same place. Earlier, when her representation was not considered, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2958 of 2017, which was disposed of on 20.1.2017 by issuing a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's request for transfer. In compliance thereof, the respondent authority by the order impugned dated 12.7.2017 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner has not completed three years services as she was appointed on 14.8.2014 hence she is not entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 23.6.2016, wherein it is provided that the request for the transfer can be considered only when the teacher has completed three years services on or before 31.3.2016.�
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 8(2)(d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 (for short, "the Rules, 2008) provides certain contingencies in which applications for inter-district transfers of female teachers can be entertained. It is further stated that the Government Order dated 23.6.2016 cannot override statutory provisions. He has placed reliance on the orders of this Court passed in similar facts in the case of Gunjan Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 35370 of 2017 and Poonam and others v. State of U.P. & others, Writ-A No. 32028 of 2017.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Sri S.K. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, and Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. Since no factual aspect is involved in the matter which requires reply from the respondents, hence with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
From the facts of this case it is evident that the petitioner's husband is working in District Kanpur and the petitioner is posted at Farrukhabad.
Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 which deals with the posting of teachers reads thus:
"8(2)(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter- district transfers in respect of male and felmale teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district." � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� ����������������������������������������������������� (emphasis supplied)
The aforesaid Rule does not require that husband of the petitioner must be a teacher or in Government employment. It simply mentions the place of residence of husband or in-laws' district. To my mind the intention of the Rule-making Authority is that the couple may remain at same place. In the policies of Central Government as well as State Government, it is provided that an endeavour shall be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place.
Regard being had to the fact that in Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 in addition to place of residence of husband, in laws' district has also been included which makes the intention of the Rule-making Authority very clear and obvious.�
In the case at hand this aspect has not been considered by the authority concerned and he has simply rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that she has not completed requisite number of years as mentioned in the Government Order dated 23.6.2016.
This Court in the case of Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017, Bibha Singh Kushawaha Vs. U.P. Basic Education Board and others has considered this issue and has held that the Government Order dated 23.6.2016 shall not override statutory provisions of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008.�
After careful consideration of the matter, for the reasons mentioned above, I find that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 are contrary to law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned cases. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12.7.2017 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the second respondent-Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made herein-above, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.9.2017
Digamber
******************************* 3.सरकारी सेवा में कार्यरत पति पत्नी को एक स्थान पर ट्रांसफर पोस्टिंग में मिली राहत , ऑनलइन आवेदन जरुरी नहीं :
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 30808 of 2017
Petitioner :- Bibha Singh Kushawaha
Respondent :- U.P.Basic Education,Board,Allahabad And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Raj Singh,Adarsh Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Chaturvedi,Sunil Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She is presently posted at Junior Basic School, Umar Khan-Ka-Tola, Padrauna, District Kushinagar. Her husband is posted at Junior Basic School, Ekwari, Gadhwara, Ballia. Both the institutions are conducted and run by the U.P. Board of Basic Education (for short, "the Board"). She has made a representation for her transfer from Kushinagar to Ballia, where her husband is posted as Assistant Teacher. A copy of her application is on the record as annexure-4 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 deals with the posting and transfer of the teachers working in Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools run by the Board.
The Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers can be entertained of only those teachers who have completed five years of their posting, however, the exception is provided that an application of a female teacher for her transfer at the place of her husband or in-laws would be entertained.�
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the petitioner is directed to submit on-line application in terms of Government Order dated 3.5.2017, in that event the petitioner would not be eligible for transfer as she has not completed five years of requisite service.�
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of R.B. Dixit v. Union of India and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 83.
Sri Sanjay Chaturvedi, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of the District Basic Education Officer submits that the State Government has issued guidelines on 13.6.2017 in respect of inter-district transfer of the assistant teachers of Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools for the session 2017-18. He further submits that on-line applications would be accepted from 7th to 20th August, 2017 and the procedure has been laid down under the said guidelines.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With their consent the writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 have been framed under Section 19(1) of the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The Rule 8(d) provides as under:
"(d) In normal circumstances the applications for inter-district transfers in respect of male and female teachers will not be entertained within five years of their posting. But under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfers in respect of female teachers would be entertained to the place of residence of their husband or in law's district."
From a reading of the aforesaid Rule it is evident that under the special circumstances an application of a female teacher can be entertained for her transfer at the place of residence of her husband or in-law's district. In such cases the requirement of five years of posting has been relaxed.
It is a well settled law that the Government Order cannot supplant the law, it can only supplement it. Indisputably, an executive order cannot override the Rules which have been framed by the rule making authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the Act. In case of any inconsistency with the delegated legislation, executive instructions or the Government Order, the Rule cannot be ignored. The same issue fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in R.B. Dixit (supra) in the following terms:
"6. We have held in Smart Chip v. State of U.P., 2002 (49) ALR 419, that in every legal system there is a hierarchy of norms as noted by the eminent jurist Kelson in his Pure Theory of Law. In the Indian Legal System this hierarchy is as follows:
1. The Constitution.
2. Statutory law, which may either be made by the Parliament or by the State legislature.
3. Delegated legislation, which may be either in the form of Rules, Regulations or Statutes made under the Act.
4. Executive instructions or Government Orders.
7. In the above hierarchy if there is conflict between a higher law and a lower law then the higher law will prevail. The executive instructions are part of the fourth layer in the hierarchy, which is at the lowest level, whereas an Act is part of the second layer and the Statutes made under the Act are delegated legislation and hence part of the third layer. The letters dated 31.8.1998 and 30.3.1999 are only executive instructions and hence they belong to the fourth layer. Hence they are neither Act nor Statutes. Hence in our opinion the age of retirement of an employee of the Indian Institute of technology is 60 years and not 62 years vide Section 13(2). We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the decision in Raja Ram Verma's case."
This issue has been considered by this Court in the case of Sarita Gupta v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ-A No. 7096 of 2010, decided on 30.7.2010. The Court had occasion to deal with the similar arguments and at that time a Government order was issued imposing certain restrictions on transfer. The Court has expressed its view in the following terms:
"The ban is general in nature. However, the provision of transfer for the purposes of placing husband and wife in the same district is a special provision which will normally prevail upon general temporary restriction on transfer.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad is directed to decide the matter ignoring the ban order dated 6.6.2009. The decision shall be taken positively within three weeks from today."�
It is trite that in most of the services of the Central Government and the State Governments, there is provision in their transfer policy that an endeavour should be made that husband and wife may be posted at the same place. In view of the said principle, under the Rules 2008 the provision of the couple posting has been incorporated.
The intention of rule making authority is very clear and it needs no elaboration.�Relevant it would be to mention that in transfer policy of State Government for Government employees there is provision only for husband and wife but in Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008 the in-laws of the female teachers have also been included. Hence, in my view, in spite of the Government Order dated 3.5.2017 a female teacher's application for her transfer on the ground of couple posting or in-laws can be entertained notwithstanding some of the contrary provisions of the said Government order.
For the above-mentioned reasons, there is no legal bar in considering the representation of the petitioner in terms of Rule 8(d) of the Rules, 2008.
Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the observations made herein-above and pass appropriate order expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.�
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 19.7.2017
Digamber
*********************************
UPTET / टीईटी / TET - Teacher EligibilityTest Updates / Teacher Recruitment / शिक्षक भर्ती / SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS
UP-TET 2011, 72825 Teacher Recruitment,Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), 72825 teacher vacancy in up latest news join blog , UPTET , SARKARI NAUKRI NEWS, SARKARI NAUKRI
Read more: http://naukri-recruitment-result.blogspot.com
http://joinuptet.blogspot.com
Shiksha Mitra | Shiksha Mitra Latest News | UPTET 72825 Latest Breaking News Appointment / Joining Letter | Join UPTET Uptet | Uptet news | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Latest News | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Breaking News | 72825 Primary Teacher Recruitment Uptet Fastest News | Uptet Result 2014 | Only4uptet | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet News Hindi | 72825 Teacher Recruitment Uptet Merit cutoff/counseling Rank District-wise Final List / th Counseling Supreme Court Order Teacher Recruitment / UPTET 72825 Appointment Letter on 19 January 2015A | 29334 Junior High School Science Math Teacher Recruitment,
CTET, TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEST (TET), NCTE, RTE, UPTET, HTET, JTET / Jharkhand TET, OTET / Odisha TET ,
Rajasthan TET / RTET, BETET / Bihar TET, PSTET / Punjab State Teacher Eligibility Test, West Bengal TET / WBTET, MPTET / Madhya Pradesh TET, ASSAM TET / ATET
, UTET / Uttrakhand TET , GTET / Gujarat TET , TNTET / Tamilnadu TET , APTET / Andhra Pradesh TET , CGTET / Chattisgarh TET, HPTET / Himachal Pradesh TET
No comments:
Post a Comment
To All,
Please do not use abusive languages in Anger.
Write your comment Wisely, So that other Visitors/Readers can take it Seriously.
Thanks.