Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 63 (ALL)

Bhism Pal Singh v. U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad

2004-01-13

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2004
ORDER N. K. Mehrotra, J.—By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow opposite party No. 2 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition in so far as it relates to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is Assistant Teacher in primary school. By the impugned transfer order the petitioner has been transferred from Deva Mau, Sarojini Nagar to Shiv Gulam Khera, Sarojini Nagar. This transfer order has been challenged on the ground that the transfer order has been issued in the back date. The informations about the medical problems of the teachers were not collected before issuing the impugned orders while the transfer policy provides that the teachers suffering from serious ailments should not be transferred as far as possible and the petitioner is a patient of heart disease and the wife of the petitioner is also under treatment. 3. I do not find any specific ground in the representation dated 5.11.2003 of the petitioner Annexure-19 as the ground of heart disease for staying his transfer. The petitioner has also filed the transfer (adjustment) policy issued in the executive order dated 5.5.2003 Annexure-13 which provides that such teachers who are suffering from incurable disease like Cancer and heart disease shall be kept out from the adjustment policy as far as possible. 4. It is well-settled that this Court can interfere with an order of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on a very limited ground namely that the transfer order has been passed contrary to any statutory provision or has been passed by a person who is not competent authority to do so or is mala fide (see Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 and Union of India v. S. L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 ). In the facts and circumstances of the case, no such ground has been made out which may warrant interference by this Court. 5. In my opinion, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to make a fresh representation to the authority concerned setting forth the ground on which he wants that the impugned transfer order be set aside or stayed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no such ground has been made out which may warrant interference by this Court. 5. In my opinion, the proper remedy for the petitioner is to make a fresh representation to the authority concerned setting forth the ground on which he wants that the impugned transfer order be set aside or stayed. It is accordingly directed that if the petitioner makes a representation afresh to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided expeditiously from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 6. Subject to the observations, made above, the writ petition is dismissed.