Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 485 (HP)

Bipen Kumar Negi v. State of H. P.

2012-09-03

DEEPAK GUPTA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT Per Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (school cadre) in the subject of History in the year 2002. He was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Nand (Solan) on 10.10.2002. He was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Chirgaon (Shimla) on 10.10.2003. He worked in Government Senior Secondary School, Chirgaon (Shimla) upto May, 2008. He was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Chirgaon (Shimla) to Government Senior Secondary School, Rohru (Shimla) in the month of May, 2008 where he worked upto 2.6.2010. He was transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Rohru to Government Senior Secondary School, Bartoo in the month of June, 2010. Now, he has been transferred from Government Senior Secondary School, Bartoo to Government Senior Secondary School, Giltari vice respondent No.3. 2. Respondent-State has filed the reply. According to the reply filed by the respondent-State, it is evident that the petitioner has remained posted within a radius of less than 25 KMs with effect from 2003 to June, 2010. However, the fact of the matter is that he has only worked in Government Senior Secondary School, Bartoo for a period of two years before his transfer vide order dated 29.6.2012. As far as stay of respondent No.3 is concerned, he has remained posted in and around, Rohru with effect from November, 1990 till date. No cogent and convincing reasons have been assigned in the reply why the petitioner has been transferred in the mid-academic session and respondent No.3 has been transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Bartoo. In case the stay of the petitioner has been clubbed, the same principle ought to have been applied to respondent No.3, who has remained posted in and around for the last more than two decades. 3. Transfer is an incident of service. The scope of judicial review in transfer matters is very limited. However, the power to transfer is coupled with the duty to ensure judiciousness and fairness. There should not be any invidious discrimination. Petitioner should have not have been transferred before the completion of academic session, i.e. March, 2013. The action of the respondents to transfer the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.6.2012 is arbitrary and capricious. 4. We have come across number of cases while dealing with the transfer matters that the teachers have been retained within the radius of 25 KMs for more than two decades. The action of the respondents to transfer the petitioner vide impugned order dated 29.6.2012 is arbitrary and capricious. 4. We have come across number of cases while dealing with the transfer matters that the teachers have been retained within the radius of 25 KMs for more than two decades. It is made clear that now the time has come to carry out necessary amendment in the transfer policy to ensure that no teacher is retained within the radius of 25 KMs more than twice in his/her entire service career. The approach of the State should be student centric and not teachers. It is the primary duty of the teachers to teach the students, more particularly, the students of the far-flung areas. The tendency of the teachers not to go to interior areas must be curbed and the efforts should be made by the State to post the teachers in the interior areas. 5. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. Respondent-State is directed to permit the petitioner to work in Government Senior Secondary School, Bartoo till 31st March, 2013. It is made clear that since the petitioner and respondent No.3 have remained posted within the radius of 25 KMs for 9 years and 20 years respectively, they should be posted outside the radius of 25 KMs from their home station/village in the next academic session. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.