Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant Sri P.K. Khare, Sri Avdhesh Shukla for respondents 4 and 5 and Sri Krishna Chandra for the State.
(2.) THE appellant claims that she was promoted on the post of Headmistress vide order dated 23.1.06 and while working as such at Basic School Alampur Latifpur, Block Hasanganj, District Unnao, she has been subjected to transfer to Basic School Hulas Khera, Block Hasanganj, District Unnao, by means of a punitive order without affording any opportunity to her. The appellant was entrusted with the work of construction of the school/portion of the school building, in which allegedly the discrepancies have occurred, as is evident from the impugned order of transfer, which says that the appellant has been found guilty on complaint being received regarding the irregularities committed in the construction of latrin in the school. The order further says that the complaint was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hasanganj, Unnao and an enquiry thereon was got conducted by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. In the said enquiry, the allegations were found proved against the appellant. As a result of the said enquiry, the Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikari recommended for transfer of the appellant as Assistant Teacher. The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari has passed the aforesaid order on 27.12.08 clearly stating that as a result of the said enquiry, she is being transferred as Assistant Teacher to another school.
(3.) THE learned Single by the impugned order has taken note of the fact that the appellant was promoted as Headmistress and has directed that in case the appellant was holding the post of Headmistress and was regularly appointed on the said post, she shall not be reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher without affording her adequate opportunity. THE learned Single Judge further observed that this Court has not interfered in the transfer of the petitioner to Hulas Khera, Block Hasanganj, District Unnao. Sri P.K. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant says that the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge has not yet been complied with by the respondents and further argued that since the learned Single Judge did not decide the controversy as to whether the appellant could at all have been transferred and punished without affording any opportunity and that too by reverting her on a lower post, the impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.;