IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.4783 of 2010 Judgment reserved on: 28.2.2011. Date of Decision: 3.3.2011 Banita Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? Yes For the Petitioner(s): Sh.Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Sh.Vivek Thakur, Addl.A.G. with Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. for respondents- State. Mr.Lovneesh Kanwar, counsel for R-4. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th August, 2010 whereby she has been transferred from GPS Bhatwar to GPS Chaplandidhar and respondent No.4 Veena Devi who was under transfer to Chaplandidhar has been adjusted in place of the petitioner at Bhatwar. 2. When the matter was listed before the learned Division Bench, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.4 submitted that the teacher had to walk around two hours through a dense forest and it 2 will be difficult for a lady teacher to walk through such a dense forest without the company of others. The Court, therefore, had directed that the respondent State may preferably accommodate some male teacher at Chaplandidhar. 3. Thereafter, this court had directed the Director, Elementary Education, to file a specific affidavit in this behalf. Such affidavit has been filed and according to the Director he has received information from the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi that there is a jeepable road as well as pedestrian path leading from Guttu to Chaplandidhar and this does not go through dense forest. The distance from Guttu to Chaplandidhar is 4 k.ms. and Sh.Rajeev Sharma, Director of Elementary Education, who is present in the Court, stated that a number of private jeeps ply on this road. 4. The respondent No.4 joined service as teacher on contract basis in the year 1997. She was regularized in the year 2006 and continued to work as such at GPS Tond Janed for almost 14 years. Thereafter, she was transferred to Chaplandidhar and managed to get the transfer cancelled on the pretext that she has to 3 look after her old parents and that her son was studying in 10+2 examination. By now her son has completed 10+2 education. There was no reason why she should have been adjusted at Bhatwar and Banita Devi who had just not completed 2 years at Bhatwar was transferred. 5. This Court is not only concerned with the difficulties faced by the employees but is also concerned with the right of education guaranteed to all the children of this Country aged up to 14 years under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India. Both the petitioner and respondent No.4 are primary school teachers and they teach children falling in this age group. Time and again this Court is noticing that teachers who are posted to schools in remote areas somehow either manage to get their transfer cancelled or take medical leave and on one pretext or the other avoid joining at such remote areas. This is against the spirit of the constitution and the law laid down by the Apex Court that every child has a right to get education. These people who virtually violate the constitutional provisions cannot and should not be granted relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the 4 prayer of such teachers, sometime we pass orders staying their transfers to such remote areas without realizing that ultimately it is the children who will suffer. In this case also, as a result of the order passed from time to time right from 12th August, 2010, there has been no teacher at Chaplandidhar. What is the fault of those minor children of Chaplandidhar that they should be deprived of their fundamental right to get education. 6. In today’s age and date when ladies claim gender equality, unless the situation is extreme they cannot claim that they should not be transferred to difficult areas. In fact a majority of primary school teachers are women and we cannot pander to the needs of the ladies and forget the fundamental rights of the minor children. 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the action of the respondents-State in adjusting respondent No.4 at Bhatwar is totally illegal since she had remained posted at one station for almost 14 years. No employee has a vested right to remain at one station for such a long period. 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the transfer order dated 6.8.2010 is quashed and set-aside. The 5 respondent No.4 is directed to join duty at GPS Chaplandidhar latest by 31st March, 2011 failing which the Department can take appropriate action against her. The petitioner shall continue to work at GPS Bhatwar for her normal tenure. No costs. March 3, 2011. ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.