IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 737 of 2007 (S/S) Leela Mehra W/o Sri Tej Singh R/o Gangolihat Post Gangolihat District Pithoragarh. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through Principal Secretary Education Department Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Director of School Education Uttarakhand Mayur Vihar, Dehradun. 3. District Education Officer District Pithoragarh. 4. Additional District Education Officer (Basic), District Pithoragarh. .……….Respondents. Shri Paresh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28/30.03.2007, passed by respondent No. 4 (copy annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner has been directed to join her duties in the original school from where she has been relieved. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- a Assistant Teacher, in primary school Syutola, District Pithoragarh, vide order dated 06.10.2005, was 2 transferred by Director, School Education to primary school, Gangolihat, on certain conditions (a copy of said order is annexed as annexure-6 to the writ petition). The petitioner’s case is that she was relieved by Head Mistress on 19.11.2005 from primary school, Syutola, and joined her duties in primary school, Gangolihat. On this, the District Education Officer, to whom the order dated 06.10.2005, was issued, directed the petitioner to show cause as to how without obtaining any order from District Education Officer/Additional District Education Officer, Pithoragarh, she left primary school, Syutola. Claiming that the petitioner is working in the school at Gangolihat, it is complained in the writ petition, that she is not being paid any salary since February 2006. Hence the writ petition. 5. In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the order dated 06.10.2005, passed by Director , School Education, was addressed to District Education Officer, Pithoragarh, who after considering whether the conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled or not, had to pass the final order of transfer but without any order obtaining from said authority, the petitioner left the school at Syutola after getting herself relieved from there and joined duties at Gangolihat. It is stated in the counter affidavit that a Government employee has no liberty to join a school at her will. 3 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the affidavits, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, it is prima facie clear that the order dated 06.10.2005, was not a transfer order, on the basis of which petitioner had liberty to leave the primary school, Syutola without obtaining orders from District Education Officer. Conditions mentioned in letter dated 06.10.2005, passed by Director, School Education, are evident from its contents, quoted below:- “mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns’k la[;k 531@XXIV (1)/2005 fnukad 6 vDVwcj 2005 ds }kjk izkFkfed fo|ky;kasa esa dk;Zjr f’k{kdks ds LFkkuakrj.k gsrq vuqeksfnr bl 'krZ ij izkIr gqvk gS fd lacaf/kr f’k{kdksa dk LFkkukarj.k csfld fo|ky;ksa esa rHkh fd;s tk;s tcfd in fjDr gksA lacaf/kr f’k{kd@f’kf{kdkvksa dh okafNr fo|ky; esa mDr in miyC/k gksus ij LFkkukarj.k ofj;rkdze iznku djrs gq;s dk;ZHkkj eqDr@dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djuk lqfuf’pr djsaA fdlh fo|ky; esa ekud ls vf/kd@vlaxr f’k{kdksa dh rSukrh dnkfi u dh tk;sA 'kklukns’k la[;k 531@XXIV(1)/2005 fnukad 03 flracj 2005 ,oa 'kklukns’k la[;k 531/XXIV (1) /2005 fnukad 03 flracj 2005 ds }kjk vuqdaik ds vk/kkj ij vuqeksfnr LFkkukarj.k dh dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gks tkus ds I’pkr gh mDr 'kklukns’k la[;k 531/XXIV (1) /2005 fnukad 6 vDVwcj 2005 }kjk vuqeksfnr bu f’k{kdksa dks LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk;sA ;fn fdlh f’k{kd dk LFkkukarj.k bl vkns’k ds varxZr xzkeh.k {ks= ds fo|ky; ls uxj {ks= ds fo|ky; gsrq vkosfnr gks rks ml fLFkfr esa uxj {ks= ds fo|ky; esa LFkkukarj.k 'kklukns’k la[;k 531/XXIV (1) /2005 fnukad 4 14 flracj 2005 esa mfYyf[kr izfdz;k ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr dh tk;sA ;g Hkh /;ku j[kk tk;s fd 'kklu vuqeksfnr }kjk vkosfnr f’kf{kdkvksa@f’k{kdksa ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh Hkh f’k{kd dk LFkkukarj.k fcuk funs’kky; dh vuqefr ds u fd;k tk;sA” 7. The above mentioned conditions clearly show that the letter dated 06.10.2005, was required to be processed at the level of District Education Officer/Additional District Education Officer, in the light of the conditions mentioned above only where after the petitioner could have been transferred by the concerned authority and then only she could have been relieved from the school at Syutola. As such, the respondents have rightly issued letter dated 11.12.2006 to the petitioner directing her as to how she has joined her duties at Gangolihat. She gave her reply but it is nowhere stated by her that there was any order from the District Education Officer or Additional District Education in compliance of order dated 06.10.2005, passed by Director of Education. However, meanwhile during the pendency of this writ petition after the interim stay order was vacated by this Court on 09.01.2008, the petitioner has joined her duties in the school at Syutola. Said fact is clear from para-4 of the rejoinder affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not at fault as the Head Mistress has relieved her at Syutola and she (petitioner) cannot alone be held responsible for joining her duties at Gangolihat. 5 8. In the above circumstances, considering the fact that the petitioner has now joined her duties back in school at Syutola, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may make a representation within a period of fifteen days from today to respondent No. 4, for release of her salary for the period she worked in primary school, at Gangolihat, bonafide in view of the order dated 06.10.2005, passed by Director, as she was relieved by the Head Mistress of primary school, Syutola. Said authority shall consider the representation made by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date certified copy of this order along with the copy of the representation made by the petitioner, is produced before such authority and decide the same as to releasing of salary of the petitioner for the period she worked at Gangolihat. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 03.07.2008 Sweta 6