Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 113 (AP)

S. Chandrasekar v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2020-02-12

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

body2020
JUDGMENT : D V S S Somayajulu, J. This Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: "......to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuance of the transfer orders vide Rc.No.Transfer/2017/DEO/2017, dated 17.08.2017, SPSR Nellore District is as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Scheme of Vocationalisation and consequently set aside the orders passed by the 4th respondent transferring the petitioners by his orders vide Rc.No.Transfer/2017/DEO/2017, dated 17.08.2017 and may pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case". 2. This Court has heard Sri K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners before this Court are Vocational Course Instructors. It is their contention that "vocationalisation" of education is being encouraged and in the year 1985-86 the scheme was introduced in Nellore District to study vocational courses so that the students become more employable. The existing curriculum and programme of study was reduced in order to give vocational training to the students. The petitioners were appointed as vocational trainers. In the proceedings it was mentioned that transfers can only be affected within the trade byway of manual counselling. The contention of the petitioners now is that they were transferred to various schools which did not have the vocational course or the relevant trade. It is pointed out that in some of the schools there is no syllabus also for teaching the vocational course. Apart from this, the petitioners rely upon an endorsement on a letter, dated 23.11.2017, submitted by the Teachers' Association wherein the 2nd respondent came to a conclusion that there are irregular transfers and made an endorsement on the letter submitted by the Union. They also rely upon the letter, dated 24.11.2017, by which the Commissioner of School Education directed the District Education Officer to act on the orders passed on letter dated 23.11.2017. Apart from this the main and critical submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are being transferred to various places where there is no vocational training provided for in the syllabus for the schools and that the purport of the scheme is being destroyed by the irregular transfers outside the trade. 4. Apart from this the main and critical submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are being transferred to various places where there is no vocational training provided for in the syllabus for the schools and that the purport of the scheme is being destroyed by the irregular transfers outside the trade. 4. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for School Education argues that initially the petitioners were appointed as vocational instructors in the year 2009, their services were regularised and they were absorbed as regular teachers. He also points out the Government has issued notification for rationalisation of posts and G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 22.05.2017, issued, by which the deficit in the proportion of the teachers as per the student-teacher's norms were identified. Counselling was conducted on 11.08.2017 and that options were exercised by the petitioners in the counselling. Apart from that, the learned Government Pleader also relies upon para-10 of his counter affidavit and argues that keeping the interest of students, petitioners were transferred to places where there is a need for vocational instructors. He also points out that the option was exercised in August, 2017 by the four petitioners, who are before this Court. Lastly, he submits that the issue of coercion etc., if raised can only be determined in an appropriate civil Court and this Court is not a forum to decide a disputed question of fact i.e., whether the consent given by the petitioners was obtained by force or not. 5. This Court after hearing both the learned counsel on the subject notices that it is a fact that initially the scheme of arrangement was that vocational teachers should be transferred within the trade only. However, it does not mean that this is a rule set in stone particularly when manual counselling was conducted for all the people including the petitioners herein for their transfer on germane grounds. As pointed out, in the course of manual counselling the petitioners had exercised their right to option. In fact, column No.10 of the Rationalisation/8 years form clearly shows that they were given a choice to opt for another place. 6. As per the settled law on the subject, transfer is an incident of service. Normally, the Court will not interfere with transfer orders except under certain limited circumstances like transfer being made for ulterior motives/mala fide purpose etc. 6. As per the settled law on the subject, transfer is an incident of service. Normally, the Court will not interfere with transfer orders except under certain limited circumstances like transfer being made for ulterior motives/mala fide purpose etc. In the case on hand the State has defended its action and stated that the counselling was conducted in August, 2017 and petitioners were transferred according to their own options. Number of vocational instructors, including the present set of petitioners, were transferred by orders dated 17.08.2017 as per the counter affidavit filed. There is a rationale for the transfer. In the year 2009, as can be seen from the counter affidavit, the services of the petitioners were regularised and they were included in the cadre as regular teachers, they were allowed the pay scales of craft and drawing teachers. This fact is not denied in the reply affidavit that is filed. If at all during the course of manual counselling held in August-2017 the signatures of the petitioners were taken forcibly; the petitioners, who are educated, trained teachers would not have kept quiet till 2018, in the opinion of this Court for filing this Writ Petition. Apart from that the issue where there is a coercion or force in obtaining the signature is not a matter that can be decided by this Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction. The letter, dated 23.11.2017 cannot also give a right to the petitioners to claim the relief. It is not clear on what basis the recommendation was made and what was the material available before the officer concerned, who made the said recommendation. As far as transfer within the trade is concerned the State specifically taken a stand that the initial recruitment was on contract basis for 10 years. Thereafter basing on the representations made by the vocational teachers their services were regularised. Sometime thereafter rationalisation norms were brought into force in order to decide and assist the surplus / needy vocational teachers in each school and to transfer them to identified posts. Pursuant to this only the counselling was conducted in August, 2017. It is very categorically mentioned that as the petitioners were found surplus they were transferred to new places along with the post. In all the four cases it is very clearly averred that the petitioners were transferred to a school where there was no vocational trade earlier. Pursuant to this only the counselling was conducted in August, 2017. It is very categorically mentioned that as the petitioners were found surplus they were transferred to new places along with the post. In all the four cases it is very clearly averred that the petitioners were transferred to a school where there was no vocational trade earlier. Therefore, they were specifically transferred into the schools where the trade was to be taught. The name of the school, vocational trade are specifically mentioned in paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit. None of these critical aspects, which are pleaded in paragraphs 9 and 10, are actually categorically denied in the reply affidavit filed. This is also a matter of State policy which is asserted and is not disputed. 7. For all these reasons mentioned above, this Court holds that - (a) as there is a rational reason for effecting the transfer of the petitioners; (b) the issue of the signatures being obtained by force or compulsion cannot be decided in a writ as it is a disputed question of fact; and finally (c) that the delay in filing of the Writ Petition (in the year 2019)when the orders of transfer was issued in August, 2017 is fatal to the case of the petitioners. (d) this Court finds that there is a basis and reason for affecting the transfer and holds that the employer-State has the right to post the teachers to a place where their services are actually needed. For all these reasons there are no merits in the Writ Petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.