Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 30 (PAT)

Sudha Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-08

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2004
Judgment 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 26.9.96 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8766 of 1996, whereby the learned writ Court did not interfere in the order of the Chancellor as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, by which all the teachers who were appointed in the fourth phase and before their services could be absorbed in their respective colleges had been transferred to different colleges in their own or other different universities within the State. 2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that though she has also been appointed in the fourth phase but her case differs from those of other similar candidates as her transfer was in view of the fact that her husband who was also a teacher had died and as she was a widow and in Sasaram she did not have facilities for proper education of her children, she on compassionate consideration after seeking no objection from the two universities had been transferred by the Chancellor to the Gautam Budha Womens College, Gaya under the Magadh University. - 3. In this regard, it has also been contended that as in view of request of the State government, to facilitate the verification of the records and educational certificates of the teachers they were required to be sent back to their parent colleges. The appellant also gave an undertaking before the authorities that she would make herself available, if and when asked to do so, that her records could be verified at any place, to satisfy the authorities regarding the genuineness of her appointment. A further contention has also been made that as the same matter was also under consideration before the arbitrator appointed by the Supreme Court, her transfer was not required to be interfered with and she be allowed to continue at the place of the transfer at Gaya. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that for proper verification of the appointment letter as well as educational certificates of a candidate the State was finding it difficult to verify the same as most of such teachers have subsequently got themselves transferred to different colleges with their Universities or otherwise without their services being confirmed. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that for proper verification of the appointment letter as well as educational certificates of a candidate the State was finding it difficult to verify the same as most of such teachers have subsequently got themselves transferred to different colleges with their Universities or otherwise without their services being confirmed. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration, the State Government by a circular had requested re-"garding their posting to their parent colleges where they were initially appointed and in view of the same, the Chancellor has also issued a general order recalling all such transfers. Verification, according to him, was already under process. 5. The Respondent-University also had filed a counter affidavit before the writ court in which it has been contended that for the purpose of verification the aforesaid order for sending the teachers back to their initial place of appointment was a necessity which has already been done and in several other cases also the same has been challenged by filing writ applications which were dismissed by this Court. 6. From perusal of the records and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the respective sides a fact which arises is that the college in which the petitioner and similarly situated persons were appointed, their absorption has still not taken a final shape and was still under consideration, for which their being in the initial college of appointment was a necessary requirement. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact and in view of the fact that even if the petitioner-appellant is sent back to Sasaram no irreparable loss would cause to her, this court is not inclined to interfere in the order of learned writ court as no apparent error has been shown. 8. Dismissed. 9. Interim order dated 17.10.1996 stands discharged.