Ravi Swaroop Dhavan, J. - (1.) THE petitioner. Km. Krishna Yadav, is an employee of the State Government, the Department of Education, and has petitioned this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to resist her transfer from Allahabad to Bindki, District Fatehpur, a neighbouring district. At Allahabad the petitioner held the designation of Upper Basic Shikha Adhikari (Mahila), Allahabad. At Fatehpur she was required to hold the post and designation of Principal, the State Girls Intermediate College at Bindiki. The petitioner alleges that the Director of Education (Mahyamik), Uttar Pradesh arrayed as respondent No. 2 does not have the authority under the law to effect this transfer order. The petitioner contends that such an order of transfer cannot be passed by the Director of Education (Madhyamik), but by the Director of Education (Basic). To fortify this plea the petitioner contends that the order of transfer cannot be justified under the State Government orders dated 30 May, 1977 and to the writ petition. In answer to the petition were filed two counter affidavits on behalf of State respondents. The first counter affidavit was in pursuance of the direction of this court to the effect that a short affidavit be filed by pleading before the Court that the order of transfer has been passed by a competent officer. In pursuance of the direction of this Court a short counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State respondents to the effect that the order of transfer, in reference to the context, has been passed by the Director of Education (Secondary) with the consent of the Director of Basic Education. The order of transfer was in pursuance of the guidelines provided by a Government Order of the Department of Education Uttar Pradesh dated 31 March, 1986, which has been appended to the short counter affidavit (herein -after referred to as such) affirmed on 18 July, 1986 by one Sabhapati Pandey, a Senior Clerk at the Director of Education, U.P. Allahabad. Subsequently the State respondent filed a counter affidavit in answer to the writ petition, which was affirmed by Miss. Hemlata Bhatia, Assistant Deputy Director of Education (Women).
(2.) THESE two counter affidavits were answered by two rejoinder affidavits. The arguments were heard by the Court at length after hearing Mr. R.A. Sharma, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Srivastava, learned standing counsel on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The arguments were concluded virtually on 9 September, 1986 except for the fact that Mr. R.A. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, sought indulgence to produce before this Court rules, if, framed by the Department of Education, to the effect that the petitioner could not be transferred from the Directorate of Basic Shiksha to the Directorate of Madhyamik Shikha. This indulgence was granted by this Court at the request of learned counsel, aforesaid. On behalf of the petitioner, the matter was taken on 11 September, 1986, when learned counsel, Mr. R.A Sharma, appeared at the Bar and made statement to the effect that he has not been able to locate any rule having a bearing on the issue sought to be raised by him on 9 September, 1986. He candidly and fairly added that he has argued all that he could. Subsequently on that day, that is, 11 September, 1986 a learned Advocate, Mr. Radhey Shyam, appeared at the Bar with a request that the petition be adjourned so that it may be further argued by Mr. V.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate, who has been instructed. Mr. R.A. Sharma learned counsel for the petitioner has not withdrawn from the case and he made a statement at the Bar that he had no knowledge of the request made by Mr. Radhay Shyam, Advocate, aforesaid. Notwithstanding, the fact that the matter had been heard at length and arguments were closed, this Court granted indulgence of further hearing to the petitioner's counsel subsequently engaged, that is, Mr. V.C. Mishra Senior Advocate. Thus this Court directed that the case be adjourned on 11 September, 1986 and be taken up at the request of the subsequent counsel so instructed, on 23 September, 1986. The resume of the court proceeding is on record of the order -sheet. On 23 September, 1986 were filed on behalf of the petitioner two applications, one seeking the addition of two grounds to the writ petition and by the other application written arguments were placed on record. There were no further arguments on that day, and judgment was reserved.
(3.) THIS Court after hearing arguments on behalf of the parties has perused the pleadings as are on record and also the written arguments submitted on record and also the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner. In effect, the effort of the petitioner is to resist an administrative order of transfer on legal plea. Even in the written arguments the petitioner has reiterated the plea that as the petitioner is an officer of the U.P. Education Services; U.P. Saikshik Seva (Kanist Vetan Kram) and she can be transferred only by the Director of Education (Basic) as she is holding the post of Upper Zila Basic Shikhsa Adhikari (Women), under the aforesaid Director. In addition the petitioner also submits that the aforesaid Director can only transfer her within his Directorate and does not have the power to accord consent so that she may be transferred to the control of any other Directorate, though within the Department of Education.;