डिवीजन / डबल बेंच ने ख़ारिज की एस्पिरेशनल डिस्ट्रिक्ट से अंतर जनपदीय ट्रांसफर याचिका No Transfer from Aspirational District : Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(Reserved)
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 870 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Shikha Singh And 24 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 861 of 2018
Appellant :- Shritika Jaiswal And 10 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Mr. Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 875 of 2018
Appellant :- Meena Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 869 of 2018
Appellant :- Alka Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 868 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Kshama Chaudhary And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 871 of 2018
Appellant :- Urmila Nagar And 4 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 860 of 2018
Appellant :- Roshni Singh And 2 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 859 of 2018
Appellant :- Antima Tiwari And 7 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 883 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Shukla And 37 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 884 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Srivastava
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 905 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sonu Verma And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 915 of 2018
Appellant :- Beena Sharma And 2 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2018
Appellant :- Ranjana Singh And 20 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 693 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Singh And 24 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 724 of 2018
Appellant :- Shalini Yadav And 16 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Kant Yadav,Ashutosh Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.)
Judgment under challenge in these appeals is dated 13.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 14395 of 2018.
Learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners (appellants herein) working as Assistant Teachers in aspirational districts have no right for inter-districts transfer and, as such, they are not having any enforceable legal right to ask for a writ in the nature of mandamus to transfer them from the aspirational district to some other district.
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants are working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the districts of Siddharth Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The districts aforesaid are known as aspirational districts in light of the Government of India policy for "Transformation of Aspirational Districts, 2018". The policy aforesaid prescribes a programme of the Government of India incurred by NITI Aayog steering the initiative in several districts of the country which are "Left Wing Extremism" affected.
In the programme aforesaid, the Government is committed to raise the living standards of its citizens and ensuring inclusive growth of all. To avail optimum utilization of the potential available, the programme focuses closely on improving people's ability to participate fully in the vibrant economy. The other areas of focus under the Programme aforesaid are health and nutrition, education, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh under its conscious decision communicated vide Circular dated 10.06.2018 that no transfer of Assistant Teachers shall be made to other districts from 08 aspirational districts, namely, Siddhartha Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Council, Allahabad, the appellants preferred petitions for writ those came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.
While questioning correctness of the judgment dated 13.08.2018, several arguments have been advanced mainly focusing to the scope and nature of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1981") that reads as follows:-
"21. Transfer - There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board."
Suffice it to state that the Rules, 1981 were enacted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Rules, 1981 regulate recruitment and other service conditions of all the teachers employed in Basic Education in the State.
As per Clause (c) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Basic School" means a school wherefrom education from Class-I to Class-VIII are imparted. As per Clause (i) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Local area" means the area over which a Local Body exercises jurisdiction and under Clause (l) of the Rule aforesaid, "Selection Committee" means the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16. As per Rule 16, the Selection Committee for Selection of Candidates for Appointment to any post under the Rules, 1981 shall consist of (a) An officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate nominated by District Magistrate - Chairman, (b) District Basic Education Officer - Member, (c) Principal, Government Girl's Intermediate College at the District Head Quarter - Member, (d) District Non-Formal Education Officer - Member, and (e) One specialist in Hindi, Urdu or other languages as the case may be; nominated by District Magistrate - Member. As per Clause (b) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule (2) the "Appointing Authority" to any post in service under the Rules, 1981 is District Basic Education Officer.
Part II of the Rules, 1981 pertains to cadre and strength. Rule 4 of Rules, 1981 provides that there shall be a separate cadre of service under the Rules for each local area. The strength for a local area and the number of posts in the cadre shall be such as may be determined by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board from time to time with previous approval of the State Government.
The provisions aforesaid clearly indicates that cadre of different posts under the Rules, 1981 shall be at district level. The resultant conclusion is that service under the Rules, 1981 is constituted at District level and, as such, Members of service cannot be transferred from one district to other as that would amount to change of cadre and even the Appointing Authority.
Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 is an exception to above as that permits transfer of a teacher appointed under the Rules, 1981 from the rural local area to urban local area or vice versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district. Such transfer, however, can be made on request of or with the consent of teachers himself and in either case with the approval of the Board.
Under the decision impugned, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has restrained application of the relaxation granted under the Rule 21 of Rules, 1981 for the aspirational districts.
While challenging the decision aforesaid which has been upheld by learned Single Bench, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that restriction imposed is highly discriminatory as teachers working in the districts or the local areas other than the aspirational districts shall be having opportunity to be transferred as per Rule 21, but the teachers working in the aspirational districts would be deprived of that. It is also stated that all the appellants are women and they are working in the aspirational districts from last several years and now when they want their transfer to the district of their choice as per the provisions of the Rules, 1981, the respondents have decided not to operate Rule 21 qua them, as such, the same is highly unjust and arbitrary too. It is also urged that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2008") shall prevail over the Rules, 1981 and Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides for inter-districts transfer and, as such, by a Government Order, application of Rule aforesaid could have not been dispensed with. It is also emphasized that Clause 6 of the existing Transfer Policy, the districts where vacancies against sanctioned posts are more than 15%, no inter-districts transfer of an Assistant Teacher shall be made. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board under its letter dated 06.02.2018 notified 40766 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools and 6719 Headmasters of Primary Schools/Assistant Teacher of Higher Basic School. As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Policy, inter-district transfer is to be made to the extent of 25% of the available vacancy only, as such, the transfer that is to be made from aspirational district to other shall be too less and negligible and that would not effect implementation of the Programme of 2018 adversely.
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants.
On going through the provisions applicable, we do not find any merit in these appeals. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981, on its face, does not create any substantive right in favour of the appellant-petitioners. Rule 21, as a matter of fact, provides a relaxation with necessary checks for transfer of a teacher from one district/local area to other district/local area, which is otherwise not permissible by statute. It is well settled that relaxation to rules in normal course cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
In view of it, we are having no hesitation in affirming the finding given by learned Single Bench that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 does not create any legally enforceable right in favour of the appellants. However, the issue under consideration is that whether denial of such relaxation to the Assistant Teachers working in aspirational districts shall be justifiable when the teachers working in the other districts are having choice to claim relaxation for their transfer from one district/local area to other district/local area.
In other words, precisely, the issue before us is whether the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 is irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory, being not founded on a reasonable criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As already stated, the aspirational districts are the districts identified by the Government of India to meet extreme left upsurge in several districts of the country including 08 districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Programme, the State Government is required to have intensive operations in the field of education, health, nutrition, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure. To have such operations, need of teachers is highly desirable. Pertinent to notice that as per the Programme of the Government, a huge budget is assigned to the field of education and a complete transformation of socio economic status of the area is required to be made. The transformation is desired to be satisfied upto the year 2022. The Ministry of Human Resource Development under the Programme aforesaid has rendered several schemes for the aspirational districts. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has also taken initiatives for aspirational districts by making District Action Plan. The District Action Plan relates to different identified sectors including the education. To execute the programme aforesaid, need of teachers is essential and, looking to that, the Government has decided not to extend relaxation as per Rule 2 to the teachers working in aspirational districts. The decision of the Government, as such, is based upon reasonable criteria and that does not suffer from any such wrong that may be termed and treated as unjust or arbitrary.
At the cost of repetition, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 is only a relaxation clause and that in no manner creates any substantive enforceable legal right sufficient to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus.
So far as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 is concerned, suffice it to state that that too does not create any right in favour of the appellants. A plain reading of the Rule aforesaid makes it clear that this too is an exception to the general rule of not transferring a person from one district to other district in normal course.
In light of whatever stated above, the appeals lack merit, hence the same are dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2018
Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
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
(Reserved)
Court No. - 21
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 870 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Shikha Singh And 24 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shailendra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 861 of 2018
Appellant :- Shritika Jaiswal And 10 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma,Mr. Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 875 of 2018
Appellant :- Meena Chandra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vikram Bahadur Singh
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 869 of 2018
Appellant :- Alka Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 868 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Kshama Chaudhary And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar (Chandraul)
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 871 of 2018
Appellant :- Urmila Nagar And 4 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 860 of 2018
Appellant :- Roshni Singh And 2 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 859 of 2018
Appellant :- Antima Tiwari And 7 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Shivendu Ojha,Radha Kant Ojha
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Deo Dayal
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 883 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Shukla And 37 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 884 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Srivastava
Respondent :- U.P. Basic Education Board And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 905 of 2018
Appellant :- Smt. Sonu Verma And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Sandeep Saxena
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap Singh
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 915 of 2018
Appellant :- Beena Sharma And 2 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Amal Darsingh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhola Nath Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2018
Appellant :- Ranjana Singh And 20 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mangla Prasad Rai
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 693 of 2018
Appellant :- Priyanka Singh And 24 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
with
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 724 of 2018
Appellant :- Shalini Yadav And 16 Ors
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Kant Yadav,Ashutosh Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J.
Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Govind Mathur, J.)
Judgment under challenge in these appeals is dated 13.08.2018 passed by learned Single Bench in a batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 14395 of 2018.
Learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned arrived at the conclusion that the petitioners (appellants herein) working as Assistant Teachers in aspirational districts have no right for inter-districts transfer and, as such, they are not having any enforceable legal right to ask for a writ in the nature of mandamus to transfer them from the aspirational district to some other district.
The factual matrix of the case is that the appellants are working as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools in the districts of Siddharth Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The districts aforesaid are known as aspirational districts in light of the Government of India policy for "Transformation of Aspirational Districts, 2018". The policy aforesaid prescribes a programme of the Government of India incurred by NITI Aayog steering the initiative in several districts of the country which are "Left Wing Extremism" affected.
In the programme aforesaid, the Government is committed to raise the living standards of its citizens and ensuring inclusive growth of all. To avail optimum utilization of the potential available, the programme focuses closely on improving people's ability to participate fully in the vibrant economy. The other areas of focus under the Programme aforesaid are health and nutrition, education, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh under its conscious decision communicated vide Circular dated 10.06.2018 that no transfer of Assistant Teachers shall be made to other districts from 08 aspirational districts, namely, Siddhartha Nagar, Shrawasti, Behraich, Sonbhadra, Chandauli, Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 issued by the Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Council, Allahabad, the appellants preferred petitions for writ those came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.
While questioning correctness of the judgment dated 13.08.2018, several arguments have been advanced mainly focusing to the scope and nature of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1981") that reads as follows:-
"21. Transfer - There shall be no transfer of any teacher from the rural local area to an urban local area or vice versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher himself and in either case approval of the Board."
Suffice it to state that the Rules, 1981 were enacted by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of the powers under sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972"). The Rules, 1981 regulate recruitment and other service conditions of all the teachers employed in Basic Education in the State.
As per Clause (c) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Basic School" means a school wherefrom education from Class-I to Class-VIII are imparted. As per Clause (i) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 2, "Local area" means the area over which a Local Body exercises jurisdiction and under Clause (l) of the Rule aforesaid, "Selection Committee" means the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16. As per Rule 16, the Selection Committee for Selection of Candidates for Appointment to any post under the Rules, 1981 shall consist of (a) An officer of the rank of Additional District Magistrate nominated by District Magistrate - Chairman, (b) District Basic Education Officer - Member, (c) Principal, Government Girl's Intermediate College at the District Head Quarter - Member, (d) District Non-Formal Education Officer - Member, and (e) One specialist in Hindi, Urdu or other languages as the case may be; nominated by District Magistrate - Member. As per Clause (b) of sub-Rule (1) of Rule (2) the "Appointing Authority" to any post in service under the Rules, 1981 is District Basic Education Officer.
Part II of the Rules, 1981 pertains to cadre and strength. Rule 4 of Rules, 1981 provides that there shall be a separate cadre of service under the Rules for each local area. The strength for a local area and the number of posts in the cadre shall be such as may be determined by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board from time to time with previous approval of the State Government.
The provisions aforesaid clearly indicates that cadre of different posts under the Rules, 1981 shall be at district level. The resultant conclusion is that service under the Rules, 1981 is constituted at District level and, as such, Members of service cannot be transferred from one district to other as that would amount to change of cadre and even the Appointing Authority.
Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 is an exception to above as that permits transfer of a teacher appointed under the Rules, 1981 from the rural local area to urban local area or vice versa or from one urban local area to another of the same district or from local area of one district to that of another district. Such transfer, however, can be made on request of or with the consent of teachers himself and in either case with the approval of the Board.
Under the decision impugned, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has restrained application of the relaxation granted under the Rule 21 of Rules, 1981 for the aspirational districts.
While challenging the decision aforesaid which has been upheld by learned Single Bench, the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that restriction imposed is highly discriminatory as teachers working in the districts or the local areas other than the aspirational districts shall be having opportunity to be transferred as per Rule 21, but the teachers working in the aspirational districts would be deprived of that. It is also stated that all the appellants are women and they are working in the aspirational districts from last several years and now when they want their transfer to the district of their choice as per the provisions of the Rules, 1981, the respondents have decided not to operate Rule 21 qua them, as such, the same is highly unjust and arbitrary too. It is also urged that Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2008") shall prevail over the Rules, 1981 and Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 provides for inter-districts transfer and, as such, by a Government Order, application of Rule aforesaid could have not been dispensed with. It is also emphasized that Clause 6 of the existing Transfer Policy, the districts where vacancies against sanctioned posts are more than 15%, no inter-districts transfer of an Assistant Teacher shall be made. The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board under its letter dated 06.02.2018 notified 40766 vacancies of Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools and 6719 Headmasters of Primary Schools/Assistant Teacher of Higher Basic School. As per Clause 3 of the Transfer Policy, inter-district transfer is to be made to the extent of 25% of the available vacancy only, as such, the transfer that is to be made from aspirational district to other shall be too less and negligible and that would not effect implementation of the Programme of 2018 adversely.
Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants.
On going through the provisions applicable, we do not find any merit in these appeals. At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981, on its face, does not create any substantive right in favour of the appellant-petitioners. Rule 21, as a matter of fact, provides a relaxation with necessary checks for transfer of a teacher from one district/local area to other district/local area, which is otherwise not permissible by statute. It is well settled that relaxation to rules in normal course cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
In view of it, we are having no hesitation in affirming the finding given by learned Single Bench that Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981 does not create any legally enforceable right in favour of the appellants. However, the issue under consideration is that whether denial of such relaxation to the Assistant Teachers working in aspirational districts shall be justifiable when the teachers working in the other districts are having choice to claim relaxation for their transfer from one district/local area to other district/local area.
In other words, precisely, the issue before us is whether the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh circulated under the Circular dated 10.06.2018 is irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory, being not founded on a reasonable criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. As already stated, the aspirational districts are the districts identified by the Government of India to meet extreme left upsurge in several districts of the country including 08 districts in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the Programme, the State Government is required to have intensive operations in the field of education, health, nutrition, agriculture and water resources, financial inclusions, skill development and basic infrastructure. To have such operations, need of teachers is highly desirable. Pertinent to notice that as per the Programme of the Government, a huge budget is assigned to the field of education and a complete transformation of socio economic status of the area is required to be made. The transformation is desired to be satisfied upto the year 2022. The Ministry of Human Resource Development under the Programme aforesaid has rendered several schemes for the aspirational districts. The Government of Uttar Pradesh has also taken initiatives for aspirational districts by making District Action Plan. The District Action Plan relates to different identified sectors including the education. To execute the programme aforesaid, need of teachers is essential and, looking to that, the Government has decided not to extend relaxation as per Rule 2 to the teachers working in aspirational districts. The decision of the Government, as such, is based upon reasonable criteria and that does not suffer from any such wrong that may be termed and treated as unjust or arbitrary.
At the cost of repetition, it would be appropriate to state that Rule 21 is only a relaxation clause and that in no manner creates any substantive enforceable legal right sufficient to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus.
So far as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 is concerned, suffice it to state that that too does not create any right in favour of the appellants. A plain reading of the Rule aforesaid makes it clear that this too is an exception to the general rule of not transferring a person from one district to other district in normal course.
In light of whatever stated above, the appeals lack merit, hence the same are dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.10.2018
Shubham
(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, J.)
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
