- (1.) S. Rafat Alam, J. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has come for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 13-2-1996, contained in Annexure 23 to the writ petition, whereby her representation against the order of transfer has been rejected by the respondent No. 1, viz. the Director of Education (Higher Education), U. P. , Allahabad. The impugned order has been challenged on the ground, inter alia, that the same is in violation of the Government policy to post husband and wife together and also contrary to the earlier direction/order of this Court dated 11-11-1995 Annexure-21 ).
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Lecturer (Music) and posted in Government Post Graduate College, Rampur since 1982. Her husband, who is the Project Officer in Non-Formal Education has also been posted at Rampur, in view of the Government policy to keep husband and wife posted at one place. By officer order dated 4-6-1994 several teachers of different subjects were transferred including the petition who has been transferred from Rampur to Ranikhet. The petitioner unwilling to join the place of transfer filed a writ petition before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was disposed of by order dated 1-4-1994 with the direction to the concerned authorities to pass appropriate order on the representation of the petitioner's husband (Annex ure 5 ). Consequently, the appropriate authority by order dated 22-4-1994 rejected the representation on the ground that one post out of the two sanction posts of Lecturer (Music) is vacant in the Government College, Ranikhet on account of which the students were suffering. Keeping this view the petitioner has been transferred in public interest so that the students may not suffer. The petitioner reluctant to join at Ranikhet, again approached this Court by filing another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 226900 of 1995, with a further new ground that the Hon'ble Chancellor has issued direction for giving suitable posting to the petitioner at a place where husband is posted, but the same is not being considered by the con cerned authority inspite of the direction of the Chancellor. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment/order dated 21-8-1995 (Annexure 14) disposed of the petition with the following directions : "that being the factual position, we direct that the aforesaid repre sentations filed by the petitioner shall be decided by the respon dent No. 2 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy before him in the light of the directions, issued by the Chancellor of the University and relevant Government orders operating in the field. "
(3.) IN compliance to the aforesaid directions of this Court, her repre sentation was considered on merit by the Director of Education (Higher Education) U. P. , Allahabad who rejected the same by his order dated 26-9-1995 holding that the alleged letter dated 17-5-1995 of the Hon'ble Chancellor has not been received in the office. It has further been held that the petitioner was relieved on 20-0-1994 to enable her to submit her joining at the transferred place, i. e. , Ranikhet but inspite of the relieving order and direction dated 22-7-1994 to submit her joining report immediately, she did not join the post. It appears that the petitioner again challengened the order of rejection of her representation dated 26-5-1995 in this Court by filing writ petition No. 31810 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by judgment/ order dated 11-11-1995 finally disposed of the writ petition with the direc tion to decide her representation afresh within 15 days in the light of the observations made in the judgment. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, has Hon'ble Court took note of different Government orders/ guidelines/policy with regard to the policy to post husband and wife at the same station because on account of their postings to different places, husband wife suffer difficulties, therefore, as far as possible they should be kept at one place. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 after considering the repre sentation of the petitioner afresh decided and disposed or the same by a reasoned order dated 13-2-1996 which has been impugned in this petition.;