# Archana Taliyan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 856
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-11
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 12652 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/archana-taliyan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51496
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Basic Education -
Transfer Policy dated 02.06.2023 - Clause
12(4) - Weightage Marks for Inter-District Transfer -
Scope.
Petitioners, Assistant Teachers, claimed weightage on
ground that their spouses are serving in Delhi Police -
Contention that Delhi Police is under Ministry of Home
Affairs, U.O.I., hence falls under "regular employees in
service of U.O.I." as referred in Clause 12(4) of transfer
policy - Held, Delhi Police is confined territorially to NCT
of Delhi, not an All India Service - Services expressly
included in clause are those of All India character (Army,
Navy, Air Force, CAPFs, etc.) or St. of U.P. - No other St.
services are included. Petitioners' claim rightly denied.
(Paras 2-6, 8, 9)

B. Transfer Policy - Judicial Review - Scope.
Transfer policy is only an administrative
guideline, not statutory in nature - Courts can
interfere only if policy is arbitrary, discriminatory
or violative of law - Explanation afforded by St.
for excluding Delhi Police is rational and not
arbitrary - Reliance on O.M. dated 01.09.2006
misplaced. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 8)

Writ Petitions Dismissed. No costs.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. This court further finds that
papers of the selection of Mr. Govind
Raman Tripathi for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher were forwarded by the
Manager of the Committee of Management of the
school to the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur vide his letter dated 2.7.2018 and in
response thereof, the District Basic Education
Officer, Shahjahanpur promptly communicated
his decision to withhold the approval of the
selection for the reason that the strength of the
students in the school is very low and further he
has sought guidance in the matter from the head of
the department i.e. Director of Education (Basic),
U.P., Lucknow. Once the District Basic Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur
after
2.7.2018
has
communicated his decision to withhold the
approval of selection vide his letter dated
23.7.2018, the question of selection having been
deemed approved under the provisions of Rule 10
(5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 does not arise. Even
further pursuant to letter of the District Basic
Education Officer, Shahjahanpur dated 23.7.2018,
the Manager of the Committee of Management of
the school has provided certain information in
respect of reasons given in the letter dated
23.7.2018, vide his letter dated 30.7.2018
therefore, even if one month time for the purposes
of deemed approval is to be counted that will start
with effect from 30.7.2018 and before that, the
Manager of the Committee of Management of the
school has issued appointment order on 14.8.2018
in favour of Mr. Govind Raman Tripathi
therefore, the said selection cannot be treated to
have been deemed approved by operation of law
as provided under Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of
1978.

27. It is worth consideration that the
intention of the rule making authority in providing
for deemed approval of the selection under Rule
10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 is crystal clear that
there may be a situation of complete inaction on
the part of the competent authority in the matter of
approval of the selection, then in that case if one
month time has passed from the date of
submission of the papers of the selection, the
competent authority shall be deemed to have
approved the selection, but in the present case after
submission of the papers of the selection on
2.7.2018, the District Basic Education Officer,
Shahjahanpur considered the entire matter and
communicated his decision to withhold the
approval for certain reasons therefore, there did
not appear any inaction on the part of the District
Basic
Education
Officer,
Shahjahanpur,
accordingly the deeming clause provided under
Rule 10 (5)(iii) of the Rules of 1978 will not come
into play.

28. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this
court does not find any illegality in the impugned
orders dated 22.5.2019, 17.7.2019 and 19.9.2019
therefore, any interference by this court is not
warranted.

29. In the result, the writ petitions are
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 856
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 12652 of 2023
Writ - A No. 11530 of 2023
Writ - A No. 12873 of 2023
Writ - A No. 17354 of 2023
Writ - A No. 13399 of 2023

Archana Taliyan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajat Aren, Sri Raj Kumar Singh, Sri
Rishi
Srivastava
2 All. Archana Taliyan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857
Counsel for the Respondents:
Mrs. Archana Singh

A. Service Law - Basic Education -
Transfer Policy dated 02.06.2023 - Clause
12(4) - Weightage Marks for Inter-District Transfer -
Scope.
Petitioners, Assistant Teachers, claimed weightage on
ground that their spouses are serving in Delhi Police -
Contention that Delhi Police is under Ministry of Home
Affairs, U.O.I., hence falls under "regular employees in
service of U.O.I." as referred in Clause 12(4) of transfer
policy - Held, Delhi Police is confined territorially to NCT
of Delhi, not an All India Service - Services expressly
included in clause are those of All India character (Army,
Navy, Air Force, CAPFs, etc.) or St. of U.P. - No other St.
services are included. Petitioners' claim rightly denied.
(Paras 2-6, 8, 9)

B. Transfer Policy - Judicial Review - Scope.
Transfer policy is only an administrative
guideline, not statutory in nature - Courts can
interfere only if policy is arbitrary, discriminatory
or violative of law - Explanation afforded by St.
for excluding Delhi Police is rational and not
arbitrary - Reliance on O.M. dated 01.09.2006
misplaced. (Paras 1, 5, 7, 8)

Writ Petitions Dismissed. No costs.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Shradha Yadav & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:4085

2. Devesh Sharma Vs U.O.I., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 985

3. Satyadev Bagur Vs St. of Raj., (2022) 5 SCC
324

4. Krishnan Kakkanath Vs St. of Kerala, (1997) 9
SCC 495

5. Sher Singh Vs U.O.I., (1995) 6 SCC 515

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

CORAM : HON'BLE SAURABH
SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. In present bunch of writ petitions
an issue with regard to interpretation of
Clause 12, sub-clause (4) of transfer policy
dated 02.06.2023 is involved. It is well
settled that a transfer policy is only an
administrative policy without any back up
of statutory provisions.

2. Petitioners before this Court are
Assistant Teachers in different Primary
Schools at different districts of State of
U.P. run by Board of Basic Education,
Uttar Pradesh. They claimed that their
respective spouses are working in Delhi
Police, which is under the supervision of
Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India
and their services would fall within the
terminology "regular employees working
under service of Union of India", as
referred in above transfer policy for
purpose of granting weightage marks for
consideration
of
their
respective
applications for inter-district transfer.

3. The claim of petitioners for interdistrict transfer was rejected and petitioners
were not granted any weightage marks on
basis that services with Delhi Police would
not fall within the service of Union of
India.

4. In the counter affidavit a
categorical stand has been taken by State as
decided in a high level meeting of State
Authorities that nature of employment of
Delhi Police is akin to State services, i.e.,
the working area of said employees is only
within territory of State of NCT and not as
a All India Service, whereas other services
mentioned in sub-cause (4) of Clause 12 of
transfer policy are the services having
nature of All India Services as well as
services which are within the State of U.P.
No service of other State is included in said
clause of transfer policy. For reference
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relevant part of transfer policy dated
02.06.2023 and circular dated 16.06.2023 is
reproduced hereinafter:

Transfer policy dated 02.06.2023

12. अींतजदनपदीय स्थानाींतरण प्रनिया
में िरीयता िेतु देय र्ाराींक

िमाींक

मानक

अनधकतम
अींक

1

Xxx

Xxx

2

Xxx

Xxx

3

Xxx

Xxx

4

नशक्षक/नशनक्षका नजनके पनत
या पत्नी सरकारी सेिा (र्ारत
सरकार/र्ारतीय
थल
सेना/र्ारतीय
िायु
सेिा/र्ारतीय नौ सेना/केन्द्रीय
अधद सैननक बल एिीं उत्तर
प्रदेश सरकार ि उ०प्र०,
बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद के
अधीन) में ननयनमत रूप से
कायदरत िो।
10

5

Xxx

Xxx

6

Xxx

Xxx

7

Xxx

Xxx

8

Xxx

Xxx

Circular dated 16.06.2023
 "(8)- सरकारी सेिा का लार् ऐसे
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका नजनके पनत या पत्नी र्ारत
सरकार/र्ारतीय
थल
सेना/र्ारतीय
िायु
सेना/र्ारतीय नौ सेना/केन्द्रीय अधद सैननक बल
एिीं उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार ि उ०प्र०, बेनसक नशक्षा
पररषद के अधीन ननयनमत कायदरत सरकारी
सेिक िोींगे, को िी देय िोगा। र्ारत के सींनिधान
के अनुच्छेद 309 के परन्तुक के अधीन नजन
कानमदकोीं का सेिा निननयमन िोता िै, िे सरकारी
सेिा की श्रेणी में माने जायेंगे। सरकारी सेिा में
अद्यतन कायदरत िोने का प्रमाण पत्र जो सक्षम
ननयुक्तक्त प्रानधकारी द्वारा ननगदत नकया गया िो, िी
मान्य िोगा।"

5. Learned counsel for petitioners
have argued at length and invited this Court
to enter into a controversy, whether the
service of Delhi Police will be a service
under Union of India or not. However,
since it is not a lis between parties to decide
this large issue as neither Delhi Police nor
Union of India being not necessary party to
this dispute are before this Court nor the
controversy could be decided by this Court
in present writ petitions, being beyond
territorial jurisdiction, therefore, despite
various arguments raised touching Act
and Rules which govern the services
of Delhi Police as well as Articles of
Constitution and office memorandum
dated
01.09.2006
including
some
judgments, this Court in present writ
petitions cannot go to consider the
above issue to extent of deciding an
issue not before this Court.

6. In above background, within
limited scope of this Court in present cases
considering explanation afforded by State, I
am of the view that Delhi Police is a
service having jurisdiction within National
Capital Territory of Delhi, whereas services
mentioned in sub-clause (4) of Clause 12 of
transfer policy, i.e., Army etc. are within
the ambit of All India Services. No other
services of other States are included in that
clause except services of State of U.P.

7. Recently this Court in a bunch of
writ petitions leading being Writ-A No.
15163 of 2023 (Shradha Yadav and
2 All. Archana Taliyan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
859
others vs. State of U.P. and others),
Neutral Citation :2024:AHC: 4085 has
dealt with the issue of scope of interference
in a policy decision of State and relevant
paragraphs
thereof
are
reproduced
hereinafter:

"१६. स्थानान्तरण नीनत के खण्ड १६,
१७ ि १८ के अन्तिदस्तु से स्पि िै, जो पररषद के
उक्त पररपत्रोीं को, जो उक्त नीनत के ' तकनीकी
चरण ि प्रनिया के ननधादरण', इसकी समय
साररणी ि कायदमुक्त कराने के सम्बन्ध में िै,
ननगदत करने के नलए स्पि रूप से पररषद के
सनचि को अनधकृत करते िै। अतैंः उक्त
पररपत्रोीं को ननगदत करने का अनधकार सनचि,
उ.प्र. बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद को पूणद रूप से था।
अतैंः पररपत्र िैधाननक िै ि निनधक रूप से
सींधारणीय र्ी िै। यि पररपत्र स्थानान्तरण नीनत
के िम में उसके कायदिािन के नलए िै, न नक
उसकी प्रकृनत के निरोध में ननगदत नकये गये िै।
स्पिता ि सींदर्द के नलए स्थानान्तरण नीनत के
खण्ड १६, १७ ि १८ पुनैंः ननम्न उल्लेक्तखत नकये
जा रिे िैैंः-

"(१६) अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण के नलए ननगदत शासनादेश के
अनुसार उ०प्र० बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद द्वारा
अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक स्थानान्तरण के
तकनीकी चरण एिीं प्रनिया का ननधादरण नकया
जायेगा तथा शासनादेश के िम में अग्रतर
कायदिािी की जायेगी।

(१७) अन्तजदनपदीय स्थानान्तरण िेतु
समय-साररणी सनचि, बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद द्वारा
अपने स्तर से पृथक से ननगदत की जायेगी।

(१८) अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण के उपरान्त नशक्षक/नशनक्षका को
कायदमुक्त करने तथा कायदर्ार ग्रिण करने की
कायदिािी मध्य शैनक्षक सत्र में निीीं की जायेगी।
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका को कायदमुक्त करने तथा
कायदर्ार ग्रिण करने की कायदिािी अिकाश के
दौरान िी की जायेगी।"

१७. अब न्यायालय को यि ननधादररत
करना िै नक पररपत्र नदनाूँक २८.०६.२०२३ के
खण्ड (५) में उल्लेक्तखत 'स्थानान्तररत जनपद में
बैच की पदोन्ननत िषद/मौनलक ननयुक्तक्त नतनथ के
आधार पर' कायदमुक्त करने की कायदिािी का
कोई न्यायोनचत कारण िै अथिा निी। यिाीं यि
ध्यान रखना िोगा नक यानचकाकतादगण के सींबींध
में अींतजदनपदीय स्थानान्तरण का आदेश पाररत
िो गया था परन्तु उपरोक्त खण्ड (५) के कारण
उनको कायदमुक्त निीीं नकया गया िै।

१८. उपरोक्त िनणदत खण्ड (५) के
अन्तैंःिस्तु के मात्र पररशीलन से स्पिता प्रतीत
निी िोती िै परन्तु पररषद के द्वारा दायर
प्रनतउत्तर पत्र ि उसके निद्वान अनधिक्ता के
कथन से स्पिता प्रतीत िोती िै, नक अगर
यानचकाकतादगण जो पदोन्ननत पद पर िै
स्थानान्तररत जनपद, जिाीं उनके ब च के
नशक्षकोीं की पदोन्ननत निी हुयी िै, कायदर्ार
ग्रिण कराया जाता िै तो िो अपने सींिगद मे
ननम्नतम िररष्ठता पर रिें। नफर र्ी िो उनके
ब च में कायदरत नशक्षक/नशनक्षका नजनको
पदोन्ननत निीीं की गई िै, से िररष्ठ िो जायेंगे
और उनके पदोन्ननत िोने के बाद र्ी
यानचकाकतादगण िी िररष्ठ रिेंगे। नजससे
असमींजसता की क्तस्थनत उत्पन्न िो जायेगी,
चािे िररष्ठता सूची मूल जनपद के स्तर पर
िी क्यो न िो। यि क्तस्थनत सिकमी को साथ
कायद करने के नलए प्रनतकूल िोगी। उपरोक्त
िनणदत कारण एक नीनतयुक्त कारण िै जो
उपरोक्त खण्ड (५) को िैधाननकता प्रदान
करता िै। अगर पररषद उक्त खण्ड (५) के
अऩ्तैंःिस्तु में और स्पिता ला पाते तो अच्छा
िोता। अनग्रम स्थानान्तरण नीनत में स्पिता का
ध्यान रखना चानिये।

१९. मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय के एक
निीन ननणदय जो देवेश शर्मा प्रति भमरि संघ व
अन्यः २०२३ एस.सी.सी. ऑनलमइन एस.सी.
९८५, के प्रकरण में पाररत नकया गया िै, में पुनैंः
यि प्रनतपानदत नकया नकैंः-
860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

" ७३. िमारे मक्तस्तष्क में नननित रूप
से कोई सींदेि निी िै, नक साधारणतैंः राज्य के
नीनतगत ननणदयोीं में सींिैधाननक न्यायालयोीं द्वारा
उसके पुनैंः ननरीक्षण अनधकारो के अींतगदत
िस्ताक्षेप निीीं नकया जा सकता िै। इसी के साथ
अगर नीनतगत ननणदय स्वयीं में िी निनध के निरूर्द्
और िो मनमाना ि तकदिीन िो तो पुनैंःननरीक्षण
के अनधकार का उपयोग करना िी चानिये।"

२०. मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा एक
अन्य प्रकरण सत्यदेव बमगुर प्रति रमजस्थमन
शमसन व अन्य (२०२२)५ एस.सी.सी. ३२४, के
प्रकरण मे पूिद मे पाररत कृष्णन्न कक्कनमथ
प्रति केरल रमज्यः(१९९७)९ एस.सी.सी. ४९५
ि शेर तसंह प्रति भमरि संघः (१९९५)६
एस.सी.सी. ५१५ के ननणदयोीं का सींदर्द लेते हुए
यि ननणीत नकया नकैंः-

" १५. यि अनतसामान्य िै नक
न्यायालय नीनतगत मामलो में िस्तक्षेप करने में
मन्द रिेंगे, जब तक नक नीनत स्पि रूप से
पक्षपाती और मनमानी न स्थानपत िो जाये। यि
न्यायालय राज्य की नीनतगत ननणदय में िस्तक्षेप
निी करेगा, जब राज्य यि इींनगत कर सके नक
नीनत के कायादििन में युक्तक्तयुक्त अींतर िै और
िो युक्तक्तयुक्त अींतर, उसके उद्देश्य की प्राक्तप्त से
सींबींध रखता िै।"

8. Heavy reliance placed by
learned counsel for petitioners on
office memorandum dated 01.09.2006
will also not be helpful since the word
used
therein
is
'treated'
only.
Otherwise also, as referred above,
territorial area of service under Delhi
Police is only limited to N.C.T. of
Delhi, not beyond.

9. In above background as well as
taking note of an explanation afforded by
State, I do not find that there is any
arbitrariness on the part of respondents in
not granting any marks to petitioners on
strength of their spouses being working in
Delhi Police.

10. The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 860
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 14750 of 2020

Ashok Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Samarath Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar, Sri
Sankalp Narayan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Jagannath Maurya

A. Service Law - Dismissal - Departmental
enquiry - Right of cross-examination -
Recovery of lost money from chargedemployee was also directed - Charge of
embezzlement was leveled - Burden of
proof, on whom lie - Neither solitary
witness was examined on behalf of the
establishment nor any kind of evidence
was led before the Inquiry Officer - Effect
- Inquiry officer, how to act and proceed
enquiry - Held, Inquiry officer must
convene himself as an impartial arbiter, an
Inquiry
Tribunal,
before
whom
the
establishment must, in the first instance,
lead evidence, both documentary and oral,
through a Presenting Officer to prove the
charge - When the establishment produce
their witnesses in support of the charge/
charges, the employee has the right to
cross-examine them - Manner in which
disciplinary proceedings have been held
by the Inquiry Officer are manifestly