Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 55 (MP)

Anil Saxena v. State Of M. P. And Another

2020-01-09

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by respondent No.2 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Primary School, Ward No.2, Seondha, District Datia to Government Primary School, Naya Kaserua, Tahsil Seondha, District Datia. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the total strength of student studying in Primary School, Ward No.2, Seondha, District Datia is 116 and, accordingly, five teachers are required in the said school. It is submitted that one Ambrish Gupta has been wrongly shown in Government Primary School, Ward No.2, Seondha, District Datia whereas he is posted in Government Middle School, Kheridevta and, therefore, the petitioner has been wrongly transferred by treating him to be in surplus. It is further submitted that the transfer of the petitioner would disturb the 'Pupil-Teacher Ratio' as required under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is bad. 3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 4. This Court in the case of Devendra Rajoriya vs. State of M.P. by order dated 6.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.26384/2019 has held as under:- ' Shri Brijesh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner. "Shri Pawan Singh Raghuvanshi, Govt. Advocate for the respondents/ State. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 23/11/2019 (Annexure P1) passed by respondent No.4, by which the petitioner has been transferred from UEGS Dharam Singhkapura, Pithan, Block Ater, District Bhind to Primary School Kamanpura, Block Mehagaon, District Bhind. (2) It is fairly conceded by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working at the present place from the date of his appointment. It is submitted that the transfers are to be made from 22/06/2019 to 31/07/2019, however, the transfer order has been passed during ban period. Since the transfer order has been passed without approval of the Chief Minister-in Coordination, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is bad. Further, there are only two teachers for twentyone students and if the petitioner is transferred, then only one teacher would be left, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 [in short '' the Act, 2009'']. Further, there are only two teachers for twentyone students and if the petitioner is transferred, then only one teacher would be left, which would be contrary to the provisions of Section 25 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, 2009 [in short '' the Act, 2009'']. The petitioner has been transferred to Primary School Kamanpura, Block Mehagaon, District Bhind where two teachers are already working there with less number of students. Thus, it is submitted that not only the transfer order has been passed during the ban period, but it is violative of Section 25 of Act, 2009 and there is no administrative exigency. (3) Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that so far as the question of ban on the transfer is concerned, the School Education Department by letter dated 15th November, 2019 has relaxed the ban from 15.11.2019 to 23.11.2019. (4) So far as the requirement of maintaining ''pupil-teacher ratio'' under Section 25 of the Act, 2009 is concerned, it is submitted by the Counsel for the State that every step would be taken to maintain the ''pupil-teacher ratio'', however, the transfer of the petitioner be not quashed on the said ground. So far as the administrative exigency is concerned, it is submitted that even according to the petitioner himself, he has spent his entire service career at the present place of posting and since transfer is an exigency of service, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that he should be posted at a particular place. (5) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. (6) Section 25 of the Act, 2009 deals with ''pupil-teacher ratio''. Thus, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the ''pupil-teacher ratio'' is maintained as required under Section 25 of the Act, 2009. Therefore, it is believed that the State would post some teachers in place of the petitioner in order to maintain the ''pupil-teacher ratio''. However, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot quash the transfer order because it will disturb the ''pupil-teacher ratio'' under the Act, 2009. (7) So far as the transfer during the ban period is concerned, the School Education Department by letter darted 15th November, 2019 has relaxed ban on the transfer till 23/11/2019. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the transfer order has been issued during the ban period. (7) So far as the transfer during the ban period is concerned, the School Education Department by letter darted 15th November, 2019 has relaxed ban on the transfer till 23/11/2019. Thus, it is incorrect to say that the transfer order has been issued during the ban period. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the petitioner has already spent his entire service career at the present place of posting and as the employee cannot claim that he/she should be posted at a particular place and the transfer is an exigency of service, no case is made out warranting interference. (8) This petition fails and is hereby dismissed. " 5. The petitioner has not pointed out as to when he was posted in the present place of posting. His only contention is that his transfer would disturb the 'Pupil-Teacher Ratio' which is required to be maintained as per the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is for the respondents to consider and ensure that the 'Pupil-Teacher Ratio' is not disturbed. However, the transfer of any teacher cannot be quashed only on the ground that it would disturb the 'Pupil-Teacher Ratio'. 6. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that this petition is devoid of merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed .