Uttarakhand High Court
Nasreen vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 159 of 2021
Nasreen ......... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the
Government Primary School, Jamariya, District Pauri Garhwal on
17.03.2005, pursuant to Office Memorandum of the Government dated
21.11.2016, on 22.02.2017, the petitioner was relieved from her place of
posting in District Pauri Garhwal and on 02.03.2017, she was posted at
Government Primary School Aruna Asif Ali, Kashipur. Subsequent to it, on
25.04.2018, the Government withdrew the Office Memorandum dated
21.11.2016. The order dated 25.04.2018 was challenged by the petitioner and
others in the bunch of writ petitions in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1406 of 2018
before this Court. All the petitions were dismissed, but an opportunity was
given to the petitioner to make a representation. The representation was
made. But, again on 28.11.2019, the petitioner was directed to join the new
place of posting. The petitioner did not stop here. She again approached this
Court and filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2752 of 2019, which was decided on
13.12.2019, in terms of order dated 11.12.2019, passed by this Court in Writ
Petition (S/S) No. 2730 of 2019. Thereafter, again the representation was
made by the petitioner. Now, it is the case of the petitioner that after the
order dated 13.12.2019, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2752 of 2019 ( the
last writ petition), she was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the
respondent no.3 and without hearing, the impugned order has been passed on
14.12.2020, by which, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected
and the petitioner is relieved on 14.12.2020. This order dated 14.12.2020 is
impugned.
2. Petitioner seeks direction that she be allowed to continue to
discharge her duties at her place of posting in Kashipur, District Udham
Singh Nagar.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel
and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the last
writ petition filed by the petitioner was decided on 13.12.2019 and in terms
of it, the representation was made by the petitioner. But, she was not afforded
the opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel would further argue that in the
Office Memorandum dated 21.11.2016, it is categorically stated that the
petitioner's lien shall remain in her original cadre, but the service book of
the petitioner was transferred from District Pauri Garhwal to District Udham
Singh Nagar and in fact, in the seniority list of the Assistant Teachers
maintained in District Udham Singh Nagar, the name of the petitioner has
been shown, which means that she has been taken in District Cadre of
District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner has become a Teacher in Udham
Singh Nagar cadre.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that on
the personal request of the petitioner, she was posted in District Udham
Singh Nagar. It is submitted that, in fact, similar controversy has been finally
decided by this Court in the bunch of connected Special Appeal No. 2 of
2021 on 13.01.2021, by which, the similar claims have been rejected.
6. Transfer, attachment and deputation, all are words, which
reflects different connotation. All are related to service and its exigencies.
Had the petitioner been ever transferred? The relieving order dated
22.02.2017, which is Annexure No.5 to the writ petition reflects that, in fact,
the petitioner was relieved from District Pauri Garhwal for her posting in
District Udham Singh Nagar. It is a kind of attachment.
7. The basis of shifting of the petitioner from District Pauri
Garhwal is this relieving order dated 22.02.2017. On its strength only, the
petitioner builds her claim. Merely, because the name of the petitioner has
been reflected in the seniority list of the Teachers as maintained by the
Education Department in District Udham Singh Nagar, it does not imply that
she has become a permanent member of the cadre of Assistant Teacher in
District Udham Singh Nagar The petitioner cannot claim that she cannot be
transferred from District Udham Singh Nagar. As stated, the petitioner takes
her claim back to the relieving order dated 22.02.2017, passed by District
Education Officer (Primary Education), Pauri Garhwal and if it is read as a
whole, it categorically reflects that it was an arrangement, which was for a
maximum period of three years. This relieving order dated 22.02.2017
categorically mentions that after three years, this posting shall be deemed to
have been cancelled. Three years time has already elapsed. The relieving
order dated 22.02.2017 has, by virtue of deeming clause, already cancelled.
8. It is submitted that after direction in the last writ petition, the
petitioner was not afforded the opportunity of hearing by the respondent
no.3.
9. The Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no
point, which may strengthen the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, impugned
order dated 14.12.2020 categorically records that the petitioner was informed
to appear in support of her representation and it further records that the
impugned order was passed after due consideration of the representation.
10. Having considered the controversy, this Court is of the view
that, in fact, there is no merit in this writ petition and it deserves to be
dismissed.
11. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
15.01.2021
Jitendra
