Gujarat High Court
District Primary Education ... vs Patel Kirtidaben Narandas on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/LPA/1153/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1153 of 2021
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16350 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1153 of 2021
==========================================================
DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER
Versus
PATEL KIRTIDABEN NARANDAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,3
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date : 06/01/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA)
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and
order dated 10.8.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No.16350 of 2018, the appellant -
original respondent No.3 - Authority has preferred this Intra -
Court Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties.
C/LPA/1153/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
3. It was the case of the respondent No.1 - original
petitioner before the learned Single Judge that she was
working as Vidhyasahayak and by way of present writ
petition, the respondent No.1 - original petitioner prayed for a
direction to transfer her to Vadodara District on the ground
that her husband is working in Vadodara District. The
respondent No.1 - original petitioner relied upon the policy
decision of the State Government which is applicable to the
appellant also being Resolution dated 23.5.2012. It is a matter
of record that earlier, the respondent No.1 - original
petitioner was working at Panchtobra K.V. Primary School,
Taluka - Gariyadhar, District - Bhavnagar and was transferred
to Haripura Primary School, Taluka - Nasvadi, District -
Chhota Udepur.
4. It appears from the record that as per the policy
enunciated by Resolution dated 23.5.2012, the appellant -
authority transferred the respondent No.1 - original
petitioner from Bhavnagar District to Chhota Udepur and not
the Vadodara District.
5. Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing appearing
for the appellant - authority, contended that during the
C/LPA/1153/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
service tenure only once such request can be acceded to and
that the policy enunciated by Resolution dated 23.5.2012 is
acted upon. However, the fact reveals that it is not the case
that the respondent No.1 - original petitioner has been given
the benefit of the policy decision dated 23.5.2012. It is an
admitted position that formerly, Chhota Udepur was part of
Vadodara District. But, now it is a separate revenue District
and, therefore, the authorities ought to have implemented the
policy enunciated by Resolution dated 23.5.2012 in its true
letter and spirit.
6. The learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned
judgment and order, has observed, thus;
"6. In view of the above, the petitioner's case may be
CONSIDERED for further transfer in Vadodara District,
where, her husband is serving. The policy conditions in
Resolution dated 23.05.2012 shall be made operative
for the petitioner to pass a fresh order, whereby, if,
vacancy is available in the Primary School of Vadodara
District, the petitioner SHALL BE transferred to
Vadodara District and if, vacancy is not available, then
the transfer shall be effected NO SOONER the vacancy
arises. While considering the case of the petitioner for
transfer, the date of her original application for transfer
shall be taken into account and her seniority for the
C/LPA/1153/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
purpose of her request for transfer shall be reckoned
from the date of her original application."
6.1 Mr.Munshaw further contended that the respondent
No.1 - original petitioner gave her consent for Chhota
Udepur. Though the distance between Chhota Udepur and
Vadodara is hardly about 150 kms., however, the fact remains
that the consent given would not operate as an estoppel and
the appellant - authority ought to have implemented the policy
and/or Resolution dated 23.5.2012 in toto. All that the learned
Single Judge has directed is that in case if any vacancy is
available in the Primary School at Vadodara District, the case
of the respondent No.1 - original petitioner to be considered.
The appellant - authority having given her part benefit of the
Resolution dated 23.5.2012, cannot be permitted to assert and
now, say that the consent was given and, therefore, the case
of the respondent No.1- original petitioner cannot be
considered as directed by the learned Single Judge in Para.6
of the impugned judgment and order.
7. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge is
subject to any vacancy in Vadodara District as the learned
Single Judge has clearly observed that no sooner the vacancy
arises, the transfer may be effected. We do not find any error
C/LPA/1153/2021 ORDER DATED: 06/01/2022
or illegality in the direction issued by the learned Single
Judge. The appellant - authority shall adhere to the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge in Para.6 of the impugned
judgment and order. The appellant, therefore, fails and is
hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8. As the appeal is dismissed, the connected civil
application also stands dismissed.
(R.M.CHHAYA,J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
V.J. SATWARA
