Tomeshwar Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 6306 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                          NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                 Writ Petition (S) No.6501 of 2022
     Tomeshwar Sinha S/o Shiv Dayal Sinha, aged about 49 years,
     presently posted as Trained Teacher (Special Educator for
     Children with hearing impairment), R/o House No.120, Phase
     No.1, Wood­I­Land Colony, Amleshwar, Distt.Durg (CG)
                                                              ­­­­ Petitioner
                                   Versus
  1. State of Chhattisgarh  Through the Secretary, Department
    of Social Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur
    (CG)
  2. Director, Directorate of Social                 Welfare,    Mana    Camp,
    Raipur, District­Raipur (CG)
  3. Collector, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (CG)
  4. Superintendent,  Government   Deaf   and   Blind,   Higher
    Secondary School, Mathpurena, Raipur, Distt.Raipur (CG)


                                                          ­­­­ Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr.Kishore Narayan, Advocate For Respondents/State : Ms Sunita Jain, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

17.10.2022

Heard.

1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order

of transfer dated 30.9.2022 (Annexure P­1), whereby the

petitioner who is working as Trained Teacher (Hearing

Impairment) and posted at Government Hearing Impairment

School, Raipur is transferred to the Government Hearing

Impairment School, Bastar on administrative ground.

2. Mr.Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submits that after transferring of the petitioner from the

present place of posting, there will be deficiency of

teachers, because at Raipur, 115 students of hearing

impairment are getting education for which five teachers

were posted and as per his instructions, out of five,

three have been transferred and after transferring the

petitioner, two teachers will only remain to teach 115

students. He would further submit that in school at

Bastar, one teacher was posted and by impugned order of

transfer, he was also transferred at Bastar. After joining

of the petitioner along with two other transferred

teachers by the impugned order, total three teachers will

be there to teach 43 students, which is contrary to the

ratio of teachers to be posted as provided under the

Transfer Policy. He also contended that in the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.132

of 2016 (Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors.), decided on 28.10.2021, as per guidelines for

appointment of Special Teachers the ratio of teachers is

mentioned as 1:8 i.e. for 8 students there shall be 1

teacher and for 115 students, now there will be only two

teachers, which is also contrary to the guidelines by

scheme for appointment of Special Teachers as observed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. Ms Sunita Jain, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State opposes the submissions of learned

counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per her

instructions even after the transfer of the petitioner

along with two other teachers, four teachers will be there

to teach 115 students including two training teachers. She

further submits that even if the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted to be correct

based on the decision of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in

Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra), then also, in the

transferred place of posting, the ratio of the teacher

posted is less than what has been argued by learned

counsel for the petitioner and therefore, the impugned

order of transfer does not call for any interference. She

also submits that 12.1 of the decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra) relied upon

by learned counsel for the petitioner would show that the

ratio as mentioned therein is with respect to preparatory

pre­school classes and not for higher classes.

4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner also

submits that the respondents have transferred four

teachers, the ratio of transfer to be made as per the

Transfer Policy. More than 10% of the teachers posted at a

particular school have been transferred.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the documents placed on record.

6. So far as the first submission made by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed

based on the scheme for appointment of Special Teachers

and ratio of teachers to be 1:8 is concerned. At

transferred place of petitioner, 42 students are there and

only 3 teachers have been posted and if the ratio as

observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajneesh Kumar

Pandey (supra) is taken into consideration, more teachers

are required to be posted in school at Bastar. Hence, the

submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner for

interference in the impugned order of transfer relying the

ratio as prescribed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey (supra) deserves to be and

is hereby rejected.

7. So far as the other grounds raised by learned counsel for

the petitioner, also I do not find any good ground to

interfere with the impugned order of transfer.

8. For the discussion as mentioned above in school at Bastar,

the teachers posted are less than the ratio prescribed as

argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. Transfer is

an exigency of service and it is for the respondent­

Department / employer to post an employee keeping in mind

the necessity, need and efficiency of an employee in a

particular place and institution.

9. In view of the abovementioned discussion, I do not find

any good ground to interfere with the impugned transfer

order. The writ petition deserves to be and is hereby

dismissed. No cost(s).

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/­

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge B/­