Wednesday, September 25, 2019

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SAMAYOJAN : मा0 उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ खंडपीठ में योजित सरप्लस समायोजन सम्बन्धी याचिका में आज 25 सितम्बर 2019 को हुई सुनवाई का आदेश।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, SAMAYOJAN : मा0 उच्च न्यायालय की लखनऊ खंडपीठ में योजित सरप्लस समायोजन सम्बन्धी याचिका में आज 25 सितम्बर 2019 को हुई सुनवाई का आदेश।


HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 20
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 19750 of 2019
Petitioner :- Shahanaz Parvavin And 147 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Adll.Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow & Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Pandey,Vineet Bihari Patel
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Kumar,Rahul Shukla
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
Heard Sri Manish Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the State-respondents, Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 7 and Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
Under challenge is the list dated 15.07.2019, which is a list of surplus Teachers. The petitioners being aggrieved are before this Court challenging the said list on various grounds, the primary ground being that earlier this Court in a bunch of petitions leading petition being Writ Petition No.25238 (SS) of 2018 in re: Smt. Reena Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 11.12.2018, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the petition, had set-aside the earlier Government Order dated 20.07.2018 and Circular dated 16.08.2018 providing for adjustment of surplus Teachers and had left it open to the Government that if it is desirous to frame a policy in regard to transfer/adjustment of Teachers of Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools, it would be at liberty to frame a fresh policy in consonance with the provisions contained in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 and U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981. It is also contended that this Court in paragraph 24 of the judgment had also indicated� that the criteria for surplus Teachers should be to first accommodate those Teachers who have been transferred from other districts in those schools in which the pupil-teacher ratio is less than the prescribed limit and then to post fresh appointees on those posts and thereafter the Teachers already working should have been redeployed and adjusted on the remaining posts.
Sri Manish Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, contends that once this Court had indicated in paragraph 24 of the judgment as to how a policy, if any, is to be framed by the Government consequently the respondents were under an obligation to frame a policy strictly in accordance with the steps as indicated in paragraph 24 of the judgment. However, in the Government Order dated 17.06.2019 issued by the respondents, a copy of which is Annexue-12 to the petition, the Government has indicated in paragraph 3 of the said Government Order the process of adjustment of surplus Teachers which starts of with ascertaining the pupil-teacher ratio in an Institution and thereafter firstly adjusting all such surplus Teachers. It is contended that paragraph 3 of the said Government Order runs contrary to the observations made in paragraph 24 of the judgment and the said judgment having attained finality was binding upon the respondents and they could not have departed from the same.
On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for BSA submits that the said Government Order is in full consonance with the judgment of this Court and the liberty which has been granted by this Court in paragraph 31 of the judgment of framing a scheme in terms of the provisions contained in Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2010 and U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981.
Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel for the State-respondents, and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Basic Shiksha Adhikari, pray for and are granted ten days time to file counter affidavit. The petitioners shall have a week thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of the aforesaid period.
Interim order in the present case as well as in the connected matters, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing.
Liberty is also given to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel to prepare a list of cases in which different point is involved and file a separate counter affidavit in those petitions.
Order Date :- 25.9.2019
A. Katiyar


1 comment:

RECENT POSTS

BASIC SHIKSHA NEWS, PRIMARY KA MASTER : अभी तक की सभी खबरें/आदेश/निर्देश/सर्कुलर/पोस्ट्स एक साथ एक जगह, बेसिक शिक्षा न्यूज ● कॉम के साथ क्लिक कर पढ़ें ।

BASIC SHIKSHA NEWS, PRIMARY KA MASTER : अभी तक की सभी खबरें/ आदेश / निर्देश / सर्कुलर / पोस्ट्स एक साथ एक जगह , बेसिक शिक्षा न्यूज ●...