सरप्लस समायोजन/तबादला नीति पर मा0 उच्च न्यायालय ने लगाया प्रश्नचिह्न, लास्ट इन फर्स्ट आउट नीति को प्रथम दृष्टया माना गैरकानूनी
Court No. - 23
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 25238 of 2018
Petitioner :- Smt. Reena Singh And Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Throu.Addl.Chief Secy.Basic Education Lko.& Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Meenakshi Singh Parihar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rahul Shukla
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri H.G.S. Parihar, Senior Advocate assisted by Meenakshi Parihar Singh, Advocate.
Office of learned learned Chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 8. Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7.
This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari quashing the condition No. 2(2)(1) and 2(3)(4) of the Government Order dated 20.07.2018 and circular dated 16.08.2018 issued by the respondent no. 3.
By means of the aforesaid Government Order, the State Government has formulated a policy for adjustment of assistant teachers in the same district on mutual consent basis and in regard to the surplus teachers in the institutions.
Submission of the learned Senior Advocate is that the State Government, without considering the grievances of those teachers who have been granted promotion on the post of assistant teacher on completion of satisfactory service and have been posted in the present place in the year 2016 and 2017, have shifted the petitioners by way of adjustment in other schools under the policy ?last in first out?, which is not justifiable in law.
He next submitted that the last date to implement the adjustment/transfer of the teachers was fixed under the Government Order dated 20.07.2018 till 05.08.2018. The said date was not extended by issuing any other Government Order by the State Government. Therefore, the circular issued by the Director of Education (Basic) dated 16.08.2018, which extends the time limit of order of transfer/adjustment till 19.08.2018, is illegal.
He further invited attention of this Court that in the Government Order it has been provided that while making adjustment the ratio of teachers and students shall be 1:40 and not less than 1:20 and in case transfer/adjustment is permitted then the teachers, who are working in the institution since long, shall be permitted to continue and the teachers, who have been granted promotion and posted in the primary school or senior basic schools, shall be adjusted in any other institution by adopting the theory of ?last in first out?, which is not justifiable in law.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel and Sri Ajay Kumar, holding brief of Sri Rahul Shukla, Advocate submitted that there is no illegality in the policy of the government and by issuing circular only date for making adjustment has been extended and in regard to the issuance of Government Order, without verifying the correctness of the fact, they are not able to make any other statement before this Court. Therefore, they requested that some short time may be granted to seek instruction and to file short counter affidavit.
Having heard rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record.
Prima facie the argument advanced by the learned Senior Advocate appears to be acceptable. The theory of ?last in first out? appears to be not justifiable in law.
Therefore, the matter requires consideration by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents are granted a week?s time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within 48 hours thereafter.
List on 14.09.2018 as fresh.
Order Date :- 5.9.2018
Post a Comment