Nathu Ram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6140 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6140 MP
Judgement Date : 28 September, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Nathu Ram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 September, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

   1     THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                  Writ Petition No.20525/2021
       Nathu Ram Ahirwar Vs. The State of M.P. and another

Gwalior, Dated:28/09/2021

       Shri D.S. Rajawat, Advocate for petitioner.

       Shri R.P. Singh, Government Advocate for respondents/State

through video conferencing.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(I) That, order annexure P/1 dated 30.08.2021 may kindly be quashed.

(II) That, respondent authority may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner for discharging his duty at present place of posting.

(III) That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he is

working on the post of Assistant Teacher from the year 1986. As

provided under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory

Education Act, 2009 (in short "Act of 2009"), the employer is under

obligation to maintain pupil-teacher ratio. It is submitted that a

certificate has been issued by the Headmaster of the Government High

School, Sunkher, Block Lateri, District Vidisha that against 58

students only one Assistant Teacher is working and thus, in case if the

petitioner is transferred, then it would badly shake the pupil-teacher

ratio. The petitioner is also facing health issues and is suffering from

heart ailment and it is not possible for him to travel 65 kms. from the

present place of posting. The petitioner has also submitted a 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.20525/2021 Nathu Ram Ahirwar Vs. The State of M.P. and another

representation against his transfer, but no heed has been paid so far.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service

and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular post.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The Supreme Court in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of

UP and others by order dated 6/9/2021 passed in SLP (Civil)

No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to

transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It

is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the

requirement".

The entire writ petition is silent as to from which date the

petitioner is working at the present place of posting. However, during

the course of arguments it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner was posted at the present place of posting

about four years back and he has already completed his normal tenure

of three years.

So far as the question of pupil-teacher ratio as required under

the Act of 2009 is concerned, it is for the State Government to ensure

that the pupil-teacher ratio is not disturbed. If somebody is transferred,

then it is incumbent upon the State Government to post a teacher in the

said school, so that the education of the students is not hampered.

3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.20525/2021 Nathu Ram Ahirwar Vs. The State of M.P. and another

So far as the certificate given by the Headmaster, Government

High School, Sunkher is concerned, it does not inspire much

confidence, as it is mentioned in the certificate that at present in

Government Integrated High School, Lodhakhedi functioning with

Classes from 1st to 8th, 58 students are studying and only one Assistant

Teacher is posted. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by

the counsel for the petitioner that in fact no other Assistant Teacher is

posted in the said school. Thus, it is clear that other teachers are

already posted in the said school, but no other Assistant Teacher is

posted. Thus, it is clear that upon transfer of the petitioner, the studies

of the students would not come to a halt and they can be taken care of

by the other teachers posted in the said school. However, it is for the

State Government to ensure that the pupil-teacher ratio is maintained

and is not disturbed on account of transfer of any teacher. Furthermore,

in the entire writ petition it has not been pleaded that nobody else has

been transferred in his place.

So far as the physical health of the petitioner is concerned, it is

fairly conceded that the petitioner has filed the documents which are

upto the year 2018. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was never

treated for his ailment after 2018. Under these circumstances, this

Court is of the considered opinion that even the ground of heart

ailment is not available to the petitioner. Even otherwise, this Court 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.20525/2021 Nathu Ram Ahirwar Vs. The State of M.P. and another

cannot act as an appellate authority and it is for the employer to

consider the personal difficulty of its employees.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has been transferred to a place which is 65 kms.

away from the present place of posting.

Merely because the transferred place is 65 kms. away from the

present place of posting, is not sufficient to quash the transfer order.

So far as the representation made by the petitioner is concerned,

it is clear that the petitioner has not joined at his transferred place and

in the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court

in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma v. The State of Madhya

Pradesh reported in 2015 (4) MPLJ 480 mere filing of representation