बिभा की तर्ज पर महिला ट्रांसफर की याचिका, कोर्ट ने सचिव को रिप्रेजेंटेशन पर 6 हफ्ते के अंदर जवाब देने को कहा - -
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9551 of 2018
Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She is presently posted at Junior Basic School, at Maharajganj. Her husband is posted as Manufacturing Chemist at Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Ghosi, Mau. She has made a representation for her transfer from Maharajganj to Mau, where her husband is posted. A copy of her application is on the record as annexure-5 to the writ petition.
This Court in the case of Bibha Singh Kushawaha v. U.P. Basic Education, Board, Allahabad and 3 Others, Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017 has passed an order directing the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"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."
This writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra). Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the second respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2018, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.4.2018
Anil
***********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9288 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Narayan Yadav,Achchhey Lal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
It is stated that facts of the present case are similar to one occurred in Writ Petition No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and Others Vs. State of U.P.), decided on 6.2.2018.
Petitioner claims that she has been married to one Arun Yadav, who is staying at Allahabad, and therefore, the case of transfer of petitioner is otherwise covered by Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Posting) Rules, 2008.
Considering the above, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the authority concerned to examine the petitioner's grievance, keeping in view the observations made in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra) and also Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008.
Order Date :- 3.4.2018
Anil
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
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9551 of 2018
Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd Shere Ali,Syed Nadeem Ahmad
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher. She is presently posted at Junior Basic School, at Maharajganj. Her husband is posted as Manufacturing Chemist at Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Ghosi, Mau. She has made a representation for her transfer from Maharajganj to Mau, where her husband is posted. A copy of her application is on the record as annexure-5 to the writ petition.
This Court in the case of Bibha Singh Kushawaha v. U.P. Basic Education, Board, Allahabad and 3 Others, Writ-A No. 30808 of 2017 has passed an order directing the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner. Relevant part of the said order reads as under:
"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."
This writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order passed in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra). Accordingly, a direction is issued upon the second respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 28.2.2018, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.4.2018
Anil
***********
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9288 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Narayan Yadav,Achchhey Lal Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ras Bihari Pradhan
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
It is stated that facts of the present case are similar to one occurred in Writ Petition No.2868 of 2018 (Bibha Singh Kushwaha and Others Vs. State of U.P.), decided on 6.2.2018.
Petitioner claims that she has been married to one Arun Yadav, who is staying at Allahabad, and therefore, the case of transfer of petitioner is otherwise covered by Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers Posting) Rules, 2008.
Considering the above, this writ petition stands disposed of directing the authority concerned to examine the petitioner's grievance, keeping in view the observations made in Bibha Singh Kushwaha (supra) and also Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008.
Order Date :- 3.4.2018
Anil
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.