Neetu Rawat vs State of Uttarakhand and others

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M. S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N. P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

The petitioner who is a lady has been transferred from "Rajkiya Kanya Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya", Lalpani, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal to "Government Girls Inter College", Lansdown, Pauri Garhwal. The principal ground for challenging the impugned order dated 01.11.2011 is that the reason why the petitioner has been transferred is that in Kotdwar she was not teaching the subject for which she was appointed whereas now at the new place of posting she will be teaching the subject for which she was appointed. The petitioner though has annexed a report (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) to the effect that at present posting (i.e. Lalpani) it is not the case as alleged, that the petitioner is not teaching the subject for which she was not appointed.

All the same, the transfer being an exigency of service and the interference by the Courts is normally made only on two grounds - (A) where there is a statutory violation or (B) the order has been passed due to malafide reasons. Since none of these two grounds exist in the present writ petition, no interference is called for.

However, at this stage, petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 16 of the writ petition wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has just given birth to a child. On query it was replied that the petitioner gave birth to a child on 18.7.2011 and presently she is on maternity leave.

This being the state of affairs, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, School Education Uttarakhand/respondent no.2 to hear the representation of the petitioner, in case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within three weeks from today. The same shall be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible particularly considering the fact that the petitioner has just given birth to a child and presently she is on maternity leave.

It is made clear that till such representation is decided, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 1.11.2011 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition), as far as it relates to the present petitioner, shall not be given effect to.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.