- (1.) BY the impugned order dated 20/6/2010 Annex.5 in Civil Writ Petition No. 5761/2010 passed by the District Education Officer certain teachers have been transferred upon being declared surplus from one place to another under the Equalization Policy recently announced by the State Government for being adjusted/absorbed at new place of posting. Under the various orders of the State Government dated 18/8/2009, 25/8/2009 & 23/3/2010 laying down guidelines for transfer of such teachers working in the Government Schools, the present petitioners have approached this Court on various grounds inter alia challenging the said transfers/absorption order on the ground that in their cases, the Policy Statements made by the State Govt. have not been followed and certain deviations have been made by the concerned authority while passing the impugned order of transfer passed on different dates in the last part of June, 2010.
(2.) COUNSELS for the petitioners submitted that since the Policy Statement itself permits such teachers to make representation to the competent authority for raising their grievance against the impugned transfer/absorption order from one place to another, the respondent authority should decide such representations of the petitioners expeditiously since new school session has begun from July, 2010. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submitted that till such representations are decided the status quo of their transfer should be maintained. Mr. R.L.Jangid, learned Addl. Advocate General present in the Court was directed to accept notice and accordingly he has done that. Learned counsels for the petitioners shall supply two sets of writ petition to learned Addl. Advocate General during the course of the day. Learned Addl. Advocate General submits that as far as issue of making representation by the teachers is concerned, there is nothing much to say because the teachers upon their individual grievance may approach the competent authority by way of representation, which would be decided in accordance with law. However, he opposed the grant of stay against transfer as it is likely to adversely effect the education system and the teachers joining their respective duties upon reopening of the schools at various places. The issue involved in these writ petitions are essentially individual grievances raised by the petitioners against their transfers from one place to another and according to them certain guidelines laid down by the State Government have not been followed. It is needless to say that the transfers under the Equalization Policy of petitioners working in Govt. Schools is essentially an administrative function of the State Government and the law in this regard to interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is fairly well settled and such interference is minimal and unless arbitrary abuse of power and question of jurisdiction is raised or established malafides are shown in the matter, the Court cannot interfere in such administrative affairs and it is best left to the discretion and wisdom of the competent authority passing such order. However, since the equalization policy recently announced by the State Government, which besides containing certain guidelines, also contains clause for making representation by the concerned teacher in case of any grievance, in the opinion of this Court, these writ petitions can be conveniently disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to decide the representations of the petitioners immediately. If such representation is already filed that may be decided and if not filed, the petitioners are at liberty to either file copy of the writ petition itself, which would be considered as representation or a separate representation may be filed to the competent authority. The representation if filed within one week of passing of the impugned order or order of this Court, which ever is earlier shall be so considered and decided.
(3.) THE said competent authority is directed to decide such representations of the concerned teachers by speaking order within a period of two weeks from the receipt of such representations. This Court is of the view that in view of the concern for education of the students at large and since a short time is given to the competent authority to decide such representation, till such representation is decided, the status quo with regard to petitioners joining at the transferred place deserves to be maintained. Accordingly it is directed that if in pursuance of the transfer/absorption order, the petitioner concerned has joined at the new place of posting, he will remain there and status quo will be maintained and if the teacher/petitioner concerned has not been relieved from the earlier place of posting and not joined at the new place of posting, then such status quo would be maintained and he will be allowed to continue to discharge his duties at the earlier place of posting. However, soon upon decision of the representation, such petitioners or teachers would be liable to join at the transferred place, if such representation is rejected by a speaking order by the competent authority. Those who have not approached this Court and have grievance with regard to their transfer, they can also make such representation to the competent authority within one week from today and it is not required of them to file writ petition for this purpose and such representation will also be decided by the competent authority within two weeks from the receipt thereof by speaking order and aforesaid order of status quo will also apply in their cases too. ;