IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1085(S/S) of 2009 Narayan Datt Tiwari ……. Petitioner. Versus Secretary Education, State of Uttarakhand Dehradun and others …. Respondents. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28- 8-2009(Annexure no.5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1 and impugned order dated 2- 9-2009 passed by respondent no.2(Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and impugned order dated 2- 9-2009 (Annexure No. 7 the writ petition) passed by respondent no.4, so far these impugned orders relate to the petitioner. According to the petitioner he is working as Assistant Teacher in Govt. Junior High School Kwiter. The aforesaid Govt. Junior High School was upgraded into Govt. High School. The post of Assistant Teacher (Basic) which the petitioner is holding is not sanctioned in the aforesaid upgraded High School. Seven posts of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade and one post of Headmaster/Headmistress were sanctioned as per standard in the aforesaid upgraded High School. Consequently the petitioner became surplus in the aforesaid upgraded Govt. High School. Thereafter Govt took a decision to adjust these surplus Assistant 2 Teachers (Basic) in other Govt. Junior High Schools where post of Assistant Teachers were lying vacant. Vide Government Order dated 02-01-2009, a committee was constituted to adjust the surplus teachers to other Junior High Schools. In District Pithoragarh in compliance of aforesaid Govt. Order on the recommendation of the committee consituted in the Chairmanship of District Magistrate, respondent No.4 adjusted the petitioner from Govt. High School Kwiter to Govt. Junior High School Binkot where post of Assistant Teacher(Basic) was lying vacant. The petitioner joined his duty in Govt. Junior High School Binkot, but all of a sudden without any rhyme and reason the respondent No.1 vide his order dated 28-8- 2009 directed the respondent No.2 to cancel all the adjustment of 97 teachers and in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, the respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 2-9-2009 cancelled the adjustment of 97 teachers. Thereafter the respondent No.4 vide another impugned order dated 2-9-2009, Annexure-7, cancelled the adjustment order of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the impugned orders have been passed with malice. They are neither in the public interest nor on administrative grounds, therefore, these orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents filed the counter affidavit and alleged that the State Government has taken a policy decision that Head Master/Assistant Teacher of Junior High Schools, who were working in upgraded Junior High Schools are to be adjusted in Junior High Schools and for this purpose a Committee was constituted and as per recommendation of the said Committee adjustment of petitioner was made in Junior High School within the District. On 28-8-2009 the State Govt. also issued another Govt. Order No. 697/XXIV- 3 2/09/05(21)/2009, by which it was directed that the adjustments were made in violation of Govt. Order dated 2-1-2009, as such the Director of Education, Uttarakhand was directed to cancel the said transfers of 97 teachers with immediate effect. Hence, the impugned orders, cancelling the adjustments, have been passed. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record, I find that the main ground for cancellation of the adjustment order was delay in complying the directions mentioned in G.O. dated 2-1-2009. The contention of the respondents is that in the Government Order dated 2-1-2009 it was specifically provided that the adjustment should be done within 15 days from the issuance of the order. However, the Committee so constituted for the purpose of adjustment could be made recommendation with delay and the adjustment of the petitioner could be done after a lapse of six months. It is pertinent to mention here that if the adjustment orders were made after 15 days from the issuance of the Government Order dated 2.1.2009 and delay was caused on the behest of the State Government and its instumentalities, then for this lapse on the part of Government, petitioner could not be allowed to suffer. It appears that the impugned orders have been passed without there being any reasonable ground, therefore the same are liable to be cancelled. The petition is allowed. The impugned orders, dated 28-8-2009(Annexure no.5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.1 and impugned order dated 2-9-2009 passed by respondent no.2(Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition) and impugned order dated 2-9-2009 4 (Annexure No. 7 the writ petition) passed by respondent no.4, so far they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. However, it is provided that in future if there exists any exigency then the petitioner may be transferred to the 91existing post, in accordance with law. Dated: 31-08-2010 ( B.S. Verma, J. ) ISB