- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. Heard Sri B. S. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner was working in the Junior High School Adarsh Mahavidhyalaya, Sultanpur, district Ballia. He was transferred by an order of the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 16-5-1991 to Junior High School Sultanpur, Ballia. In pursuance of the said transfer order the petitioner joined his duties on his transferred post. Few teachers of the said Junior High School, Sultanpur Ballia who were not being paid their salary had approached the High Court by filling writ petitions for the payment of salary. In the said writ petitions interim orders were passed for the payment of salary of the teachers. Against the interim orders, Special Appeals No. 1079 and 1080 of 1999 were preferred by the Committee of Management of the institution. THE Special appeals were allowed and a direction was issued to the Director Education (Basic) U. P. , Lucknow to consider the claim of the teachers who have filed writ petitions for the payment of salary by a speaking order in accordance with law. THE Director of Education (Basic) U. P. , Lucknow while considering the representations of those teachers in pursuance of the directions issued by the High Court in the above special appeals, by the impugned order dated 2-2- 2000 rejected their representations and also held that the transfer of the petitioner dated 16-5-1991 is invalid, as there was no vacant post i the Junior High School, Sultanpur, district Ballia when he was transferred. On the basis of the above order consequential order dated 10-2-2000 has been issued by the Manager of the committee of Management of the institution terminating the services of the petitioner. THEse two orders have been impugned in the writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Director of Education (Basic) U. P. , Lucknow was not dealing with the matter of the petitioner. Therefore while considering the claim of the other teachers in pursuance of the directions of the High Court it was not open for him to have passed the order against the petitioner holding his transfer to be invalid. Secondly, the impugned order against the petitioner has been passed in clear violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as neither any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before cancelling his transfer order. The last submission of the petitioner is that his transfer was not liable to be cancelled after about 9 years. The learned Standing counsel has defended the impugned order on the ground that the very appointment by transfer of the petitioner was unlawful as there was no vacant post in the institution where the petitioner was transferred. Therefore, on error or illegality has been committed by the Director of Education (Basic) in the cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner and since the transfer was invalid on the face of the record no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was necessary. It is not in dispute that the Director of Education (Basic) was dealing with matter of the other teachers of the institutions who have filed writ petitions in the High Court for the payment of their salary in pursuance of the directions of the High Court in special appeals. In those writ petitions or the appeals the petitioner was not a party, therefore the director of Education (Basic) was not dealing with the matter of the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, in my opinion the Director of Education (Basic) acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order cancelling the transfer order of the petitioner while considering the claim of the other teachers of the institutions.
(3.) THE second submission of the learned Standing counsel that no opportunity of hearing was necessary, is also misconceived and is not tenable. THE petitioner was transferred under the order of the district Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 16-5-1991 and the said order was carried out. No steps were taken to cancel or revoke the said transfer order for about 9 years. It has no where been stated that the said transfer order was obtained by the petitioner by playing fraud or by misrepresentation. In other words, the petitioner has not been assigned any role in getting the said order of transfer. THE cancellation of the petitioner's transfer order after 9 years definitely visits him with civil consequences. THErefore where the order adversely affects the civil rights, the party affected is certainly entitle to an opportunity of hearing as Principles of natural justice are applicable in all fields and branches of administrative law. Accordingly, the impugned order is not only arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice but is also without jurisdiction. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 2-2-2000 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) is quashed to the extent it relates to the petitioner and accordingly the consequential order dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is also quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned with liberty to the respondents to take appropriate action, if necessary, in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Petition allowed. .;