Allahabad High Court
Kahakashan Latif And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2767 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kahakashan Latif And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Navin Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Archana Singh,Vikram Bahadur Singh
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel who appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Sri Vikram Bahadur Singh appears for respondent No. 4 and Sri Shresth Pratap Singh holding brief of Miss. Archana Singh for respondent No. 2.
Though the writ petitioners herein seek inter se transfer while being resident of Unnao and Baharaich, it has been argued that in view of the fact that the second respondent who is stationed at Prayagraj, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The case of the writ petitioners is that the petitioner No. 1 is working as Assistant Teacher in a Primary School Bahraula, Block- S. Sarosi, District Unnao. Since her date of appointment i.e., 10.03.2019 and she assumed the charge on 11.03.2019, it is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that she seeks her transfer to Bahraich and the petitioner No. 1 and her in-laws are residing in District Bahraich, and it has been pleaded that the mother-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 is under treatment of acute Arthritis and she is blessed with two year son and now at present she is pregnant and there is nobody to look after her in-laws, copy of the relevant documents of the treatment of the mother-in-law has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Similarly, so far as the case sets out of the petitioner No. 2 concerned, he seeks transfer from District Bahraich to District Unnao as according to petitioner No. 2 he belongs to District Unnao and his brother is handicapped. In para 11 of the writ petition reference has been made to an affidavit dated 12.06.2021 which has been marked as Annexure 6 at page 46/48 of the paper book wherein they had stated on oath that they seek inter se transfer and the said affidavit is claimed to have been submitted before the second respondent, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj. Learned Standing Counsel for the writ petitioner has invited the attention of the Court towards the provisions contained under Rule 8(2)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 so as to further contend that the second respondent is empowered to take an appropriate decision in the light of the aforesaid provision wherein mutual transfer is being requested to be made. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has further invited the attention of the Court towards the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 235 of 2022 the Basic Education Board and two others Vs. Priti and 4 others decided on 12.07.2022 so as to further contend that his case stands covered by the same. Lastly it has been sought to be argued that they have jointly represented the matter before the second respondent on 09.01.2023 reference whereof has been given in para 32 of the writ petition, so direction be issued for deciding the same.
Learned Standing Counsel as well as the counsel appearing for the other respondents, on the other hand, have argued that the question as to whether the claim of the writ petitioner is covered under the said Rules and they are entitled to be transferred on mutual consent is to be decided at the first instance by the second respondent as he is empowered to decide the same, since the petitioners have made a statement that the writ petitioners have already represented the matter 09.01.2023 thus, there would be no fruitful purpose served in detaining the writ petition on board, however, the same can be disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to prefer a fresh representation before the second respondent who shall decide the same in accordance with law.
Considering the submission of the rival parties, the present writ petition is being disposed of without calling for the response to granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive joint representation before the second respondent, Secretary, U.P Basic Education Board, Prayagraj annexing therein the representation had already been preferred on 09.01.2023 and other documents supporting their claim. The second respondent after receipt of the said representation was proceeded to decide the same within a further period of one month from the production of the certified copy of the order.
Subject to the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated upon the matter on merits and it is open to the second respondent to decide the claim of the writ petitioners in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
Order Date :- 15.2.2023
Rajesh
