High CourtsSingle Bench

Sumitra Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 21 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 UK CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 571 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 439 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2.

Petitioner is an Assistant Teacher (Language) in Government Upper Primary School, Devar, Ukhimath, District Rudraprayag, where she was

posted in September, 2018. According to the petitioner, her transfer to the said school in 2018 was a mutual transfer with one Mr. Rajkumar, who had

sought transfer to the school where petitioner was serving.

3.

Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.04.2021, whereby she has been adjusted in Government Upper Primary School, Uthind, Ukhimath,

District Rudraprauyag. This writ petition is directed against the said order passed on 12.04.2021 by District Education Officer, Elementary,

Rudraprayag.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order, petitioner has been adjusted in some other school in Block Ukhimath on the

ground that one Mr. Satye Singh Aswal, who was posted as regular language teacher in Government Upper Primary School, Devar, where petitioner

is presently serving, was transferred to some other school in the year 2018, since Mr. Satye Singh Aswal did not join at the transferred place,

therefore, by treating him to be posted in Government Upper Primary School, Devar, petitioner is being treated as surplus. Therefore, by the impugned

order, petitioner has been adjusted in some other school.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner is in no manner responsible for non-joining of Mr. Satye Singh Aswal at the

transferred place. Thus, according to him, the respondent-authority is not justified in passing the impugned order against the petitioner for a lapse

committed by Mr. Satye Singh Aswal.

6.

Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State submits that transfer is an incidence of service. He further submits that if

petitioner is aggrieved by her adjustment in some other school by the impugned order, then instead of straightway rushing to this Court, she should

have approached the Competent Authority, by making a representation.

7.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the

District Education Officer, Elementary, Rudraprayag within seven days from today. If such representation is made within the stipulated time, the

District Education Officer concerned shall look into the matter and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within three weeks from the

date of receipt of representation along with certified copy of this order.

8.

For a period of four weeks or till decision is taken, whichever is earlier, status quo as of today shall be maintained qua the posting of the petitioner.

9.

All pending applications stand disposed of.