AFi^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2967 OF 2007 Smt. Lilima Kujur Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Post for pronouncement of the judgment and order on /f-5-2009 Sd/- Satish KAgDihotri Judge E; fi 1 ^ ^' L:'•V, •--._/?, -;-;-.,"\ .a h HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 2967 OF 2007 Smt. Lilima Kujur W/o Shri Celestin, agedabout 35 years, Upper DivisionTeacher, Primary School Kansabel,Distt. Jashpur (C.G) R/o Kansabel, Distt. Jashpur (CG). Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur 2. The Collector, Distt. Jashpur (C.G) 3. District Education Officer, Jashpur (C.G.) 4. Director, Raigarh Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur. 5. Head Master, Private Primary School Kansabel,Distt.Jashpur. 6. Mr.FatherAgastin Coolly Kamla aged about 64 years,son of not known, Director Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri, Distt. - Jashpur. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J, Present:- Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the petitioner. . Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the 'State/ respondents 1 to 3. Ms.Tripti Dewangan, Advocate appearing on behalf of Smt. Hamida Siddique, Advocate forthe respondents 4. JUDGMENT&ORDER (Passed on this /) "dav of May, 2009) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 21.05.2003 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Director, Raigarh Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner for cancellation of her transfer order, has been rejected, and the order dated 24.06.2002 (Annexure P/2), whereby </>-;-.--t\~^s .^"••"'"^. ^^ the petitioner has been transferred from Primary School, Kansabel, to Primary School Pandripani. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the respondent No. 5 and 6 are running private schools in various parts of District Jashpur and Raigarh. The said institutions are getting grants-in-aid from the State Government. The petitioner is serving under the respondent No. 4 and 5 at Kansabel. The respondent-School made a proposal to the District Education Officer for transfer of the petitioner and sought for its approval. However, during pendency of the said proposal,without obtaining the sanction of the District Education Officer vide order dated 24.06.2002 (AnnexureP/2), the petitioner was transferred from Primary School Kansabel, to Primary School Pandripani. Being aggrieved .by the said transfer order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, being W.P.No.696 of 2003. The saidpetition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2003 (Annexure P/5) reserving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent- Management which would be decided as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner made a representation before the respondent-Management. The representation could not be decided by the authorities concerned within the stipulated period, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition, being contempt petition No.73 of 2003 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 01.03.2007 on the basis of information submitted by the respondent therein i.e. Mr. Father Agastin Cooly Kamla that the representation of the petitioner was decidedon 21.05.2003. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the contempt petition was disposed of on the basis of wrong submission made by the respondent No 6 because vide letter dated 14.08.2003 (Annexure P/7) the respondent authorities i.e. the Director, Raigarh Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri, Distt. Jashpur, who decided the representation of the petitioner on 21-5-2003, asked the petitioner to submit representation so asto decide the same in accordance with the direction given by this Court in W.P.No. 696/2003. Therefore, the question of deciding the representation of the petitioner on 21.05.2003 (Annexure P/1) does not arise at all. 4., Per contra, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the State and Ms. Dewangan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, would submit that this petition has become infructuous, as pursuant to the transfer order dated 24-6-2002 (Annexure - P/2). a representation made by the petitioner was rejected by order dated 21-5-2003 (Annexure - P/1). The impugned order dated 24-6-2002 was cancelled by order dated 4-12-2002 (Annexure - R/1) and the petitioner directed to be posted at Sant Paul Primary School, Jaria on the recommendation of the Collector, Jashpur and thereafter again on 1-6-2007 (Annexure - R/2) the petitioner was transferred ^•- to Primary School, Khantadand, District Jashpur. The petitioner has not challenged the subsequent transfer orders dated 4-12-2002 and 1-6-2007, therefore, the initial challenge to the transfer order dated 24-6-2002 has become infructuous and the subsequent order dated 21-5-2003 has no relevance after the subsequent transfer orders were passed thereon. 5. Shri Kotecha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in rejoinder, would submit that even if by subsequent orders the petitioner has been transferred to other places it is necessary to decide the question of law asto whether the approvat of the District ...^ ^^-^'.^ 6. 7. f: Education Officer is necessary before transferring the teacher to Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. [t appears that the original transfer order dated 24-6-2002 was cancelled by order dated 4-12-2002. Thereafter, the petitioner was again transferred from one place to other place by order dated 1-6-2007. The petitioner has not challenged the transfer orders dated 4-12-2002 and 1-6-2007. Now the petition has become academic. It is well settled law that if a case has become infructuous on the facts of the case and question remains to be decided for academic purpose, it is not necessary to examine the case. In Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another , the Supreme Court observed as under : "12.....We take the view that this Court should not make any pronouncement on any question which is not strictly necessary for the disposal of the particular case before it. We, therefore, confine our attention to Art. 14 and proceed to discuss the question on thatfooting." In Dhartipakar IVIadan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi , their Lordships observed as under: "4.......1n this view grounds raised in the petition for setting aside the election of the respondent have been rendered academic. Court should not undertake to decide an issue unless it is a living issue between the parties. If an issue is purely academic jn that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time to engage itself in deciding it. Lord Viscount Simon in his speech in the House of Lords in Sun Life Assurance Co. ofCanada v. Jervis observed: "I do not think that it would be a proper exercise of the authority which this House possesses to hear appeals if it occupies 1AIR 1959 SC 149 21957/SuppySCC93 A:^. \>, ' i'? A' ^ ' •.. .y /! '%-s"^/ ;••-~-s"-^' 9, time in this case in deciding an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the respondent in anyway. It is an essential quality of an appeal fit to be disposed of by his House that there should exist between the parties to a matter in actua) controversy which the House undertakes to decide as a living issue." In Secretary, IVtinistry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others3, the Supreme Court observed as under: "121. The orders passed by the High Court have to be viewed against the backdrop of the events and the position of law discussed above. The circumstances in which the High Court passed the orders and the factual and legal considerations which weighed with it in passing them speak for themselves. However, since the cricket matches have already been telecast, the question of the legality or otherwise of the orders has become academic and it is not necessary to pronounce our formal verdict on the same. Hence we refrain from doing so." 10. In State of IVtanipur and others v. Chandam Manihar Singh , the Supreme Court observed as under : "10. Having given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions, we find that as the Migh Court's direction in favour of the respondent's tenure which is to expire on 15-10-1999 has almost worked itself out and less than a month remains for him to act as Chairman of the Board, the first grievance raised by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in connection with the removal of the respondent by order dated 19-10-1998 has become of academic interest. We, therefore, did not permit learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to canvass this point any further before us. That takes us to the consideration of the second point." »- 11. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Arnit Das v. State of Bihar , observed as under: "6. It is settled practice that this Court does not decide matters which are only of academic interest 3 (1995)23cc 161 4 (1999)78cc 503 5 (2001) 7 SCC 657 ::^ Gowri on the facts of a particular case...(See with advantage: Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. ~v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwalv. Rajiv Gandhi)" 12. In Prakash Singh Badal and another v. State of Punjab and Others , the Supreme Court observed as under: "39. So far as the question about the non-application of mind in the sanction or absence of sanction is concerned, this has been answered in the first question i.e. where the public servant has ceased to be a public servant sjnce he has ceased to hold the office where the alleged . offence is supposed to have taken place, the other questions really become academic. 13. The dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases have been subsequently referred and followed by this Court in Tritiya Verg Shaskiya Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti IVIaryadit v. The Chhattisgarh Information Commission & Others , wherein it has been held in categorical terms that the question of law on academic interest cannot be adjudicated upon, the same should be left open for adjudication whenever the appropriate facts arise. 14. In view of the well settled dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases, the question asto whether the approval of the District Education Officer is necessary before transferring the »-- teacherto Catholic Diasis School, Kunkuri raised by the petitioner is of academic interest and the same need not be decided in this petition and the said qyestion is left open to be decided in the appropriate case. 15. tn the result, the petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. Rule is discharged. Sd/- Satfsh K.Agnihotri Judge e(2007)1 SCC1 7WP (C)No.4313 of 2008 (11-8-2008)