KM ARCHANA BHARTI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

 Petitioner participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools, held in the year 2014,

pursuant to an advertisement issued on 01.02.2014. Based on her merit, petitioner was selected and invited for Counseling for allotment of

district. In the State Counseling, petitioner was allotted District Almora, where she joined in the month of October, 2014. All candidates, who

applied pursuant to advertisement dated 01.02.2014, were required to indicate their choice regarding districts in order of preference. Petitioner gave

her first preference for District Haridwar and fourth preference for District Almora. Since she was allotted District Almora, thus feeling aggrieved,

she made a representation on 07.10.2014 to Additional Director, State Council for Education Research & Training, Dehradun (in short “SCERTâ€)

against allotment of District Almora.Â

Sri Anil Dabral, learned Standing Counsel for the State submits that in view of the Government Order dated 31.01.2014, a committee, headed by

Additional Director, SCERT, was constituted for holding the selection and when representations were received from the selected candidates,

regarding allotment of districts, then the Additional Director, SCERT constituted a further committee headed by Principal, District Institute of

Education & Training (DIET), Dehradun to look into the grievance of the selected candidates and make appropriate recommendations. Sri Anil

Dabral has fairly submitted that the said committee, after considering petitioner’s representation, expressed an opinion that she ought to have been

allotted District Haridwar in view of her choice and ranking in the merit list. Petitioner has filed this writ petition on the ground that since the

committee has decided her representation in her favour, therefore, she may be allotted District Haridwar. Â

Learned counsel for the State further submits that recommendation of the committee headed by Principal, DIET, Dehradun was not approved by

the Additional Director, SCERT, Dehradun, therefore, the decision taken by the said committee has not been given effect to. Â

This submission made by learned Standing Counsel is unacceptable for the simple reason that once a committee has been constituted to look into

the representations and to take appropriate decision thereupon, then there is no need of any further approval from any superior authority. A committee

was constituted to look into the grievance raised by the selected candidates, which was competent to take appropriate decision thereupon, which is

apparent from para 6 of the counter affidavit, filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WPSS No. 1739 of 2014, which is enclosed as R.A.1 to the

rejoinder affidavit. Para 6 of the said counter affidavit is extracted below:-

“6. That in reply to the contents of para 16 of the writ petition it is submitted that the criteria adopted were the options given by the candidate

according to the availability of the vacant post in the district. The aggrieved candidates filed their representation before the respondents. Here it is

submitted that total 182 representations were received by the respondents and for the disposal of these representation the enquiry committee was

constituted. For the disposal of these representations the process is still going on. A true and correct copy of 180 representation received by the

respondents is filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. CA-1 to this counter affidavit.â€​

Respondent No. 5 has filed a counter affidavit to the present writ petition and the defence taken by respondent has been summarized in para 4 of

the counter affidavit, which is extracted below:-

“4. That the contents of para 2 to 11 of the writ petition are based on record. However, it is submitted that pursuant to the appointment letter

dated 04.02.2014, petitioner joined and resumed her duty at Government Primary School, Odal Gaon, Navin Vikas Khand, Bhasiachana, District

Almora. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation on 7.10.2014 by which stating this fact that since she has given first preference to the

District Haridwar, and securing high marks in the merit, despite this fact the person lowest in the merit list has been appointed for District-Haridwar,

accordingly prayed for amend the same and allotted to her District-Haridwar. It is further submitted that since petitioner has already joined the

aforesaid place of posting i.e. Government Primary School, Odal Gaon, Navin Vikas Khand, Bhasiachana, District-Almora without any objection and

condition. As such the prayer for amendment of District made by the petitioner is not tenable in view of Uttarakhand Teachers Transfer Rules, 2013

(First Amendment 2014) and petitioner has completed 3 years service in the allocated District-Almora. It is significant to point out here that earlier

the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School was a district cadre, which is at present block level cadre. It is further submitted that there is no

vacant post in district Haridwar in respect of the category and cadre of the petitioner published vide advertisement dated 01.02.2014.â€​

Thus, the stand taken by the respondent in their counter affidavit is that in view of Uttarakhand Teachers (School Education) First Appointment

Promotion and Posting Transfer Rules, 2013, as amended from time to time, petitioner cannot be transferred from Almora to Haridwar. Another

defence, which has been taken is that there is no vacancy in any Government Primary School in District Haridwar.

Since the petitioner was wrongly allotted District Almora, and she should have been allotted District Haridwar, as held by the committee in its

report, therefore, the defence taken by the respondents that she cannot be transferred in view of Uttarakhand Teachers (School Education) First

Appointment Promotion and Posting Transfer Rules, 2013, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of

mistake committed by the authorities, while allotting districts.Â

Today a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 in Court, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit,

respondent No. 2 has admitted that 96 posts of Primary School Teacher are actually vacant in District Haridwar. Thus it is apparent that petitioner

can be considered for allotment to District Haridwar, and the defence, earlier taken, has no substance. Â

There is yet another aspect which needs to be considered. In para No. 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit, it is stated that unfilled

vacancies of 2014 selection in District Haridwar were supplied by appointing wait listed candidates. It can be safely inferred that wait listed

candidates would be ranking below the petitioner in the merit list, therefore, petitioner has a better claim for allotment to District Haridwar, as

compared to them.Â

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider petitioner’s claim, regarding

allotment of District Haridwar and pass reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within four weeks from the date of presentation of

certified copy of this order.Â