Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1525 (ALL)

BRAHMA DUTTA SHARMA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2000-12-11

V.M.SAHAI

body2000
V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was teaching as Lecturer in Chemistry in Government Inter College, Agra. By order dated 23. 8. 2000, he was transferred to Government Inter College, Mainpuri, on administrative grounds. The wife of the petitioner made a representation to the Revenue Minister who wrote a letter on 19. 9. 2000 to the State Education Minister if he would issue orders for cancellation of petitioners transfer. On 21. 9. 2000, the State Education Minister directed the director, Madhyamik Shiksha to submit a report and cancel the transfer of the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to respondents to implement the order passed by the State Education Minister. The other relief claimed is that the respondents have deducted a sum of Rs. 1,634 from the salary of the petitioner for loss of one steel almirah without any inquiry. ( 2 ) SHRI R. C. Katara, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the state Education Minister wrote a letter to the Director of Education to cancel the transfer order of the petitioner, the Director was under statutory duty to cancel the transfer order dated 23. 8. 2000 passed against the petitioner. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents without inquiry and serving him an order of recovery could not have deducted Rs. 1,634 from his salary. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, Smt. Chitralekha Satsangi, the learned standing counsel has urged that the petitioner did not make any representation to the Director or to the State Education Minister. The wife of petitioner did make a representation to the Revenue Minister who wrote a letter to the state Education Minister, to cancel the transfer order. She urged that in law, wife of an employee could not make any representation for staying the transfer of her husband. It is the employee himself who has to make to the concerned authority for cancelling the transfer. She urged that in law, wife of an employee could not make any representation for staying the transfer of her husband. It is the employee himself who has to make to the concerned authority for cancelling the transfer. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the Minister is in-charge of the Department and it is the duty of the Director of Education to obey every order passed by the minister and since the Director is under statutory duty to obey the orders of the Minister, therefore, a writ of mandamus can be issued to him to implement the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Tara Prasad Misra v. State of U. P. and others, (1990) 2 UPLBEC 905, wherein it has been held that the subordinate authority should comply the orders of the superior authority. This Full Bench decision is not applicable to the facts of this case as learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision under which the Director of Education is subordinate to the State Education minister. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit. ( 5 ) SO far as the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that Rs. 1,634 has been deducted from his salary without any inquiry or supplying a copy of the order, the petitioner may approach the Principal, Government Inter College, Agra and make a representation for providing a copy of the order by which his salary of Rs. 1,634 has been deducted. On such a representation, copy of the order shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the principal. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid and subject to the observations made, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. .