JUDGMENT
Rajesh Tandon, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner from Almiyagaon Dwarahat to any one of the Primary Schools near Almora city at Chetai, Dhora, Sarsoun or Falsima.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that initially the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year of 1995 and was posted at Primary School, Alimiyagaon, Dwarahat, District Almora. She is regularly teaching in that school and has completed more than 8 years in the present place of posting. It was stated by the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is working at Nainital and her father-in-law and mother-in-law are very old and are dependent upon the petitioner. The petitioner cannot look after them from Dwarahat. The petitioner has three children. Her one daughter namely Km. Akansa is studying in Class V and another daughter Km. Pallavi is studying in Class II.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner has stated that the in-laws of the petitioner are very old and require medical care regularly.
4. There is no medical facility available in Alimiyagaon, Dwarahat. The father, m-law of the petitioner has made a representation on 19.8.2000 to the Director of Education, Lucknow and requested that the petitioner may be transferred to any primary school near Almora city. The Additional Director of Education, Uttaranchal on 24.8.2000 has directed the B.S.A., Almora to transfer the petitioner as desired by her. The direction is to the following effect:
^^Jherh jUtuk iUr] lgk;d v/;kfidk] izkFkfed
fo|ky;] vfYe;kxkWo] {ks= }kjkgkV] vYeksM+k dk LFkkukUrj.k vYeksMk ‘kgj ds fudV
izkFkfed fo|ky; [kR;kMh@/kqjlksa@jsykdksV es fdlh ,d fo|ky; esa djus ds lEcU/k
esa buds llqj Jh j?kqojnRr iUr] ls fu iz/kkuk/;kid] vYeksM+k dk i= izkIr
gqvk gS ftls ewy:i es layXudj bl vk’k; ls izsf”kr gS fd i;k budh
ikfjokfjd ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq;s Jherh jatuk iUr] izkFkfed
f’kf{kdk] izkFkfed fo|ky; vfYe;kxkWo {ks= }kjkgkV vYeksM+k dk LFkkukUrj.k
mi;qZDr vafdr fjDr in ds izfr djds r dk;Zokgh ls eq{ks voxr djkuk lqfuf’pr
djsaA**
5. The guidelines with regard to the posting husband and wife at one place has been framed.
6. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Deepa Vashistha v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1996 AWC 269, has held as under :
“However, in a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court renders in Home Secretary, U. T. Chandigarh v. Darshijit Singh Grewal and Ors., JT 1991 (4) SC 387, their Lordships have ruled that policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the administration, and having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated it to all concerned, the administration is bound by it. It cannot doubt, change the policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.
Now, coming to the case in hand, the Government Orders/guidelines/policy said to have not been adhered to are contained in Annexures 16, 17 and 18 to this petition and they lay down thus :
1. If the couple is in Education department, they both should be kept at one station at the time of appointment and transfer.
2. If one of the husband and wife belongs to Education department and another to different department, even then efforts should be made to transfer one of them to that place where the other is posted.
3. Husband and wife posted at the same station should not be transferred.
4. On account of their postings to different places, husband and wife suffer difficulties, therefore, as far as possible, they should be kept in one place.
Thus the guidelines in respect of couple in Government service have taken care of that husband and wife should be placed at one station. Placing the words “as far as possible” it is couched not in negative form and accordingly the same a interpreted by the Apex Court.
Taking into account the human considerations and social needs the aforesaid guidelines have been framed and the basic idea behind it is that whole set up of the family may not be disturbed notwithstanding the fact that said guidelines are not in imperative form. Thus, it needs consideration with positive approach till the policy is not changed or amended in view of the decision in Home Scretary U.T. Chandigarh’s case (supra) and if, is not possible to keep husband and wife at one place, cogent reasons in such cases are expected to be assigned so that transferee husband or wife, as the case may be, able to know the reasons. If any, policy has been framed and still operative, the executive action are expected to be in conformity with the same and not to negate it.
In order words, in the garb of public interest administrative exigencies, it is not at the whims of the authority to disturb the family by transferring one of the husband and wife to a different place since the guidelines are not in imperative form or they have no force of law. If the administrative exigencies or public interest so requires, certainly husband and wife may be transferred to different places but only in exceptional cases i.e., rarest of the rare cases, for which no illustration can be given.”
7. However, in the present since the husband is serving at Nainital and the wife is at Dwarahat, Almora the transfer of the petitioner may be made of Almora which is a place at some distance from Nainital and it will not hit by Rule 21 of U.P. Basic Education Rules. The same is quoted below :
“21. Procedure for 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 shall be necessary.”
8. Sri H.M. Raturi, Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has very fairly admitted that aforesaid Rule permits the transfer of the petitioner on her request. Sri Raturi has also very fairly stated that in view of the recommendation of the Additional Director, Basic Education, dated 24.8.2000 the Respondent No. 3 B.S.A., Almora will pass orders regarding transfer of the petitioner on his representation.
9. Respondents are, therefore, directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within 15 days in the light of the observations aforesaid after receiving of the certified copy or this order.
10. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to the costs.