Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 45488 of 2010 Petitioner :- Vikas Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Prabhakar Awasthi Respondent Counsel :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Shishir Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2010, by which he
has been transferred from the office of District Inspector of
Schools to the Government Girls Inter College in the same district.
According to petitioner, a Government Order was issued on
09.06.2010 taking a decision that persons, who have completed
three years of service at a particular place, their place may be
changed. Subsequently, under the direction issued by the
Education Minister a decision has been taken on 13.07.2010 that
all the persons, who are working as Group-C employee, if they
have completed five years of service at a particular place, they
should be transferred in the same district amongst the other offices
of Education Department like Government Inter Colleges.
According to petitioner, Education Minister has no concern with
the transfer and posting of the employees. The circular dated
13.07.2010 is a decision imposed by the Education Minister to the
Director of Education to transfer all the employees who have
completed five years of service. Further submission has been made
that no other reason has been recorded while passing the order
except they are being transferred only on the ground that they have
completed five years of tenure at a particular place.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties. It appears that in a meeting headed by the Education
Minister a decision was taken that the employees working under
the Joint Director of Education in every district, who have
completed five years of tenure at a particular place, may be
transferred to another branch of Education Department or
Government Inter Colleges. Taking into consideration the
aforesaid fact, various persons have been transferred. It is not the
case of the petitioner that he has not completed five years of
tenure. Further, it is a general order of transfer from one place to
another in the same district. Transfer being an exigency of service
petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he cannot be
transferred from one place to another in spite of the fact that a
decision to this effect has been taken that if a person has
completed five years of tenure at a particular place, he will be
transferred to another place in the same district. In case, petitioner
has been transferred to another district, then he can have any
grievance before this Court, but he has been transferred in the
same district and only the place of work has been changed,
therefore, he cannot raise any objection to this effect.
In view of the aforesaid fact, this writ petition has no merit and is
hereby dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to raise his
grievances before the competent authority.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 4.8.2010
NS