IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 825 (S/S) of 2007 Shikha Goyal W/o Sandeep Goyal Presently posted as Assistant Teacher Primary School No. 15, Town Area Roorkee District- Haridwar ------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Basic Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun 2. Director, School Education Uttarakhand Dehradun 3. District Education Officer, Haridwar 4. Upper District Education Officer (Basic), Haridwar ------- Respondents Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Paresh Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel State of Uttarakhand for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.06.2007, Annexure 6 to the writ petition passed by respondent no. 4, Upper District Education Officer (Basic), Haridwar transferring the petitioner from Primary School No. 15, Town Area, Roorkee to Primary School Khelpur Vikas Khand Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. The submission of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary School in the year 1995 in a rural area and since she was suffering from a chronic disease, in pursuance to the Government Order dated 14th September, 2005 issued by the Government, She applied for transfer from rural area to urban area and the prayer of the petitioner was accepted with a condition that she will lose her seniority of the service, which she has already 2 rendered in rural kshetra. After losing her 10 years’ seniority, the petitioner joined in urban area and since 2005, she is working in urban area. However by the impugned order, she has been transferred again in the rural area on the ground that she is working against the standard strength of teachers in the school. The main ground of attack of the petitioner is that she could not have been transferred from urban area to rural area in view of Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. In the view of Section 60 of the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit of the Regulation of U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 and as such there is no force in submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The second ground of the petitioner is that she is suffering with a chronic disease and in view of her chronic disease, she was transferred in 2005. The petitioner for this purpose may file a certificate from the Medical Board and produce the same before the appropriate authority. The petitioner is also directed to make a representation to respondent no. 4 within a period of 10 days and the appropriate authority is directed to take decision on the representation of the petitioner considering the medical report of the petitioner and may pass appropriate order for adjusting the petitioner to a suitable place within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order along with the representation, if any moved by the petitioner. While deciding the representation of the 3 petitioner, the respondent shall take decision on every point of the representation. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. All the pending applications stand disposed of. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) 09.07.2007 VKS