Ratnesh Kumar Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15856 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Deo Narayan Singh Resident of VillageMashrakh Purab Tola, P.O. and P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra, presently posted as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Brahimpur, Block- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra.

2. Kanti Devi wife of Sri Vijay Shankar Dubey, Resident of Village- Karan Kudariya, P.O.- Dumarsan Bangra, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra. presently posted as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Madarpur Hindi, Block- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra.

3. Neelam Kumari, wife of Sri Anil Kumar Rastogi, Resident of Station Road Mashrakh, P.O. and P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra, presently posted as Block Teacher in Middle School, Sikti Bhikham, Block- Mashrakh, DistrictSaran at Chapra.

4. Gautam Prasad Sah, Son of Late Gorakh Sah, Resident of Village and P.O.- Bahrauli, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra. presently posted as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Madarpur Hindi, Block- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra.

5. Rekha Kumari, wife of Sri Anil Singh, Resident of Village and P.O.- Dumarsan Bangra, P.S. Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra. presently posted as Block Teacher in Middle School, Brahimpur, Block- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra.

6. Anju Kumari, Wife of Sri Devendra Singh, Resident of Village- Karan Kudariya, P.O.- Dumarsan Bigha, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra, presently posted as Block Teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Chand Kudariya, Block- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra.

7. Om Prakash Sah, Son of Sri Ganga Sah, Resident of Village- Karn Kudariya, P.O. Dumarsan Bangra, P.S.- Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra, presently posted as Block Teacher in Ramdeo Middle School, Mashrakh, BlockMashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2/5

3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra, District- Saran at Chapra

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saran at Chapra, DistrictSaran at Chapra.

6. The Block Teachers Appointment Committee, Mashrakh through the Secretarycum-Block Development Officer, Mashrakh, District- Saran at Chapra. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"(I) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the letter dated 30,07.2016 issued under the signature of Respondent no. 6 and contained in his memo no. 1002 dated 30.07.2016, whereby and where under in view of the decision taken by the Block Teachers Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 13.02.2016 and after approval of the said proposal by the Respondent no. 6, he has been pleased to issue order of adjustment of the petitioners and others in contravention of the provisions contained under Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2012, so far it relates to the present petitioners. (II) For a declaration that if the provisions contained under Sub-Rule-E of Rule-15 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as Appointment Rules, 2012), does not permit routing transfer of teachers

3/5 by the Authorities and option to take transfer has been conferred upon the teachers. Even Sub-RuleE (vi) of Rule-15 of Appointment Rules, 2012 cannot be exercised by the Block Teachers Appointment Committee for routing transfer of Block Teachers from one school to another and that too in violation of the provisions contained under the Rules.

(III) For issuance of any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which the writ petitioners would be found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the case."

3. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, as far as petitioners no. 2, 3 , 5 and 6 are concerned, their order for transfer were recalled and thus the cause of action not surviving, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition was not being pressed on their behalf.

4. The petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that without following the due procedure prescribed for such transfer, they have been transferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the Rules, if at all, any adjustment has to be made with regard to teachers from one school to another, an exercise has to be undertaken to determine the student-teacher ratio and thereafter it has to be determined as to where there are surplus teachers and where there are less teachers and further when the shifting is to be made, the requirement is that the juniormost person would be sent under such

4/5 adjustment. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, directly on the basis of a letter written by the Pramukh to the respondent no. 6, the whole exercise has been initiated without there being any follow up exercise and straightaway transfer orders have been issued without there being anything on record either showing justification on the basis of student-teacher ratio or the teachers being surplus, and further, the principle and method of making such transfer/adjustment.

6. Having considered the matter, the Court finds that from the pleadings on record, including the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, there is nothing to controvert the fact that the procedure as required has not been followed. Rather, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the exercise is required to be done after determining the student-teacher ratio and the number of teachers who may be surplus but carrying out such exercise in the present case not having been stated either in the pleadings or orally before the Court, clearly indicates that the same has not been done. In view thereof, the transfer of the petitioners no. 1, 4 and 7 cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the order impugned transferring the petitioners no. 1, 4 and 7 as contained in Memo No. 1002 dated 30.07.2016, as far as it relates to them, stands quashed.

5/5

8. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforementioned terms.

9. In view of the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the State, it is clarified that the authorities are not constrained from taking action in the matter, including that of transfer/adjustment, as and when the occasion arises, the only rider being that it has to be in accordance with law and the Rules/ instructions issued in this regard by the Government/Competent Authority.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U