Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sangeeta Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4649 of 2022
Petitioner :- Smt. Sangeeta Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Suhas Subhash Mehta,Arvind Mishra,Kuldeep Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Bhupendra Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh for the respondents.
The grievance of the petitioner is that she has sought second transfer, which has been rejected by impugned orders.
Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, has pointed out that in the similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Writ-A No.10959 of 2021, Divya Goswami Vs. State of U.P. and three others, has passed the following the order:-
"The petitioner challenges an order pursuant to which her application for inter district transfer came to be rejected with the respondents noting that she would not be eligible to apply having availed of that facility earlier. The aforesaid order was essentially based upon the judgment rendered by a learned Judge of the Court in Divya Goswami And Others v. State of U.P. And Others [2020 (11) ADJ 137]. The restrictions which the learned Judge imposed in terms of the aforesaid judgment rendered fell for consideration of a Division Bench of the Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 419 of 2021. While upholding the judgment in part the Division Bench observed thus:-
"In view of the above, we find that the Government Order, imposing bar on second application for inter-district transfer, is not in consonance with the Rules; rather, de hors the statutory Rules. To that extent, we are entertaining this appeal and causing interference in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge prohibiting second application for inter-district transfer. It is, however, with the clarity that mere making of application would not mean a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the State Government. It is furthermore that if the Government permits inter-district transfer, the employee would be placed at the bottom of the seniority in the district where he/she is transferred.
With the aforesaid, we cause interference in the order of the Government as well as the judgement of the learned Single Judge to clarify that as per Rule 21 of the Rules of 1981 so as Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules of 2008, an employee would be at liberty to make application for inter-district transfer and it would not be restricted to only one application in his service tenure. It is again with the clarification that mere making of an application would not create a right to get transferred; rather, it would remain at the discretion of the Government.
If any employee has been affected by the outcome of the judgement in question, he would be at liberty to take the remedy individually challenging the order of transfer.
The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid."
It is thus manifest from the above, that the stipulation as placed in the original judgment to the effect that a second application cannot be made was set aside. In view of the subsequent judgment rendered on the Special Appeal, the reasoning assigned in the impugned order would not sustain.
Notwithstanding the above the principal question which then survives for consideration is whether the respondents are liable to be directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner for transfer during the mid-academic session. Regard must be had to the undisputed fact that the process of transfer has presently been brought to a close and in any case it would not be in public interest to command the respondents to undertake an exercise of transfer during the mid-academic session.
It becomes pertinent to note that after the judgment had been rendered in Divya Goswami, the State had moved an application for modification seeking relaxation of the prohibition placed on mid-academic session transfers. Dealing with that application the learned Judge on 03 December 2020 made the following observations:-
"At this stage, it is also submitted by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General that the cases of medical emergency should also be taken as an exception to the general rule of transfer as far as the mid of the academic session is concerned. It is submitted that in cases where the people are suffering from incurable or serious diseases that amount to a case of medical emergency, should have an opportunity to apply for transfer even during mid session.
Learned counsel for the respective petitioners do not dispute this above view also and I also find justification in the request made by learned Additional Advocate General and therefore, as far as direction no. 1 in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 is concerned that shall not be pressed into service in cases of medical emergency. Needless to add that the medical emergency cases should be dealt with by the Government strictly in accordance with its own guidelines and that prescribed procedure to identify such cases, shall be religiously followed.
In view of the above, my judgment and order dated 03.11.2020 stands modified in above terms.
The application stands disposed of."
It is thus evident that the judgment was modified only to the extent of opening a window for mid-academic session transfers being effected in case of medical emergencies or where people were suffering from a serious or incurable disease. That is not the case which obtains here. In view of the aforesaid, the Court would not be justified in commanding the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for transfer in the mid-academic session.
On an overall conspectus of the aforesaid while the writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned decision of the respondents appended as annexure-19 to the writ petition quashed, the Court leaves it open to the petitioner to apply for transfer afresh as and when such an exercise is initiated by the respondents prior to the commencement of the new academic session."
In view of the above, impugned orders in the writ petition are hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed.
It is left open for the petitioner to apply for transfer a fresh whenever the transfer applications are invited on-line by the respondents prior to commencement of new academic session.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
SS
