# Jagdish Singh v. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. through Secretary and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 305
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-07-27
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdish-singh-v-basic-shiksha-parishad-u-p-through-secretary-and-others-39619
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1All] Jagdish Singh V. Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. through Secretary and others
305
with law within a period of six
months, to be computed from today.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-DJGLVK 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
%DVLF 6KLNVKD 3DULVKDG 83 $OODKDEDG
WKURXJK LWV 6HFUHWDU\ DQG RWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $VKRN *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 3. 6KDUPD
6&

7UDQVIHU 2UGHU RI ± &DQFHOODWLRQ DIWHU LWV
LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ ± +HOG 9DOLG
+HOG ± 3DUD
7KHUH LV QR EDU RU UHVWULFWLRQ WR WKH
PRGLILFDWLRQ UHYRFDWLRQ RU FDQFHOODWLRQ
RI DQ RUGHU RI WUDQVIHU HYHQ DIWHU LW KDV
EHHQ
LPSOHPHQWHG
7KHUHIRUH
WKH
'LVWULFW %DVLF (GXFDWLRQ 2IILFHU GLG QRW
FRPPLW
DQ\
HUURU
LQ
FDQFHOOLQJ
WKH
WUDQVIHU RUGHU RQ WKH JURXQG WKDW LW ZDV
LOOHJDO
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
 83/%(&

By the Court

1. The petitioner was transferred by
an order passed on 27.7.2000 by the
District Basic Education Officer, Banda.
In pursuance of the transfer order the
Petitioner joined on 31.7.2000 at the
transferred place. By another order passed
on 1.9.2000 the District Basic Education
Officer, Banda has cancelled the earlier
transfer order. The petitioner in this
petition has challenged the order passed
on 1.9.2000.

2. I have heard Shri Ashok Gupta
the learned counsel for petitioner. Shri
P.K.
Sharma
the
learned
counsel
appearing for the respondent's no. 1 and 2
and learned the standing counsel for the
respondent no. 3.

3. The argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that in pursuance of
the transfer order since the petitioner has
joined, therefore, the transfer order stood
exhausted and it could not be cancelled,
cannot be accepted. The Full Bench of
this court in Director Rajya Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow and
others v. Natthi Lal (1995)( 2 UPLBEC
1128 has held that there is no bar or
restriction to the modification, revocation
or cancellation of an order of transfer
even after it has been implemented.
Therefore, the District Basic Education
Officer did not commit any error in
cancelling the transfer order on the
ground that it was illegal.

4. The other argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the Chief
Development Officer had no power to
direct the District Basic Education Officer
to cancel the transfer order is devoid of
any
merit.
The
Chief
Development
Officer is the Chairman of the committee
under
the
government
order
that
recommends transfer of the teachers
working basic schools in the district,
therefore, he is empowered to direct the
District Basic Education Officer to cancel
transfer order illegally passed earlier by
his predecessor.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
306

5. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not
find any merit in this petition.

6. The writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

5DMHQGUD 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV )DWHKSXU
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 6. 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL .. &KDQG
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

±
0DQGDPXV
±
3HWLWLRQHU
D
SDUW
WLPH
WHDFKHU
KDV
QR
OHJDO
ULJKW
WR LQVLVW
SHUIRUPDQFH
RI
D
VWDWXWRU\
GXW\
E\
DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DXWKRULW\ +HQFH ZULW RI
PDQGDPXV KHOG FDQQRW EH LVVXHG
+HOG ± 3DUD
$ ZULW RI PDQGDPXV FDQQRW EH LVVXHG DV
D PDWWHU RI FRXUVH ,W LV D GLVFUHWLRQDU\
MXULVGLFWLRQ DQG FDQ RQO\ EH LVVXHG IRU
HQIRUFHPHQW RU SHUIRUPDQFH RI VWDWXWRU\
GXW\ E\ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH DXWKRULW\ RQ DQ
DSSOLFDWLRQ RI D SHUVRQ ZKR FDQ VKRZ
WKDW KH KLPVHOI KDV D OHJDO ULJKW WR LQVLVW
IRU VXFK SHUIRUPDQFH $ SDUWWLPH RU
KRQRUDU\ WHDFKHU GRHV QRW KDYH DQ\
VWDWXWRU\ ULJKW WR FODLP FRQWLQXDQFH DV D
WHDFKHU
LQ
WKH
LQVWLWXWLRQ
QRU
WKH
FRPPLWWHH RI PDQDJHPHQW LV HQWUXVWHG
ZLWK
SHUIRUPDQFH
RI
VWDWXWRU\
GXW\
7KHUHIRUH D ZULW RI PDQGDPXV FDQQRW
EH
LVVXHG
WR
WKH
PDQDJHPHQW
RU
SULQFLSOH
WR
FRQWLQXH
D
SDUWWLPH
RU
KRQRUDU\ WHDFKHU QRU LW FDQ FRPSHOOHG WR
SD\ DQ\ KRQRUDULXP GXH WR VXFK WHDFKHU
&DVHV UHIHUUHG:
 /%(65
 83/%(&
&0: RI GHFLGHG RQ
$,5 $//

By the Court

1. Adarsh Janta Inter College, Aung,
Fatehpur (in brief institution) is an unaided and recognised institution imparting
education up to class VIII. In 1994 the
institution was upgraded to High School
and again it was upgraded to Intermediate
in 1996. The institution is an un-aided
institution and it was never in the grantin-aid list of the State Government. The
petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Teacher in the institution on 1.7.1992 and
no appointment letter was issued to him.
It is alleged that salary of the petitioner is
not being paid by the respondents. In the
year 1998 in the identity card issued to the
petitioner it is stated that the petitioner
was appointed on 1.7.1998 as Hindi
lecturer. It has been stated in paragraph 12
of the writ petition that the petitioner has
been disengaged by respondents with
effect from March, 2000. This writ
petition has been filed for a direction to
respondents no. 2 and 3 to permit the
petitioner to function as lecturer in the
institution and pay his salary since March,
2000.

2. Sri S.K. Mishra the learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
urged that the petitioner was appointed in
the institution and even though the
institution is un-aided the management
could not even disengage the petitioner