# Manish Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 969
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-28
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 18346 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manish-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45303
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Shashi Kant Verma

A.
Challenging-impugned
ordertransferring/adjusting
petitionerstreating
them
to
be
surplus-policy
decision-contained in G.O-adjustment of
teachers-made on the basis if actual
number of students-against total number
of students enrolled-impugned order-in
conformity with G.O dt. 17.06.2019.

B. Held, in making transfer/adjustment in
terms
of
the
policy
decision
dt
17.06.2019, the authorities have adopted
uniform method. No specific perversity
could be pointed out by the petitioners in
the list of students and teachers prepared
by the District basic Education Officer,
filed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ
Petition
which
is
not
even
under
challenge in the present writ petition. The
impugned transfer/adjustment orders are
merely
consequential
to
the
above.
Therefore, it cannot be interfered with.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

## Text

1 All. Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
969

16. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any error of law in the
impugned order dated 23.10.2019, which
has been passed by the respondent no.4
after affording opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 969

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A No. 18346 of 2019

Manish Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashish Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shashi Kant Verma

A.
Challenging-impugned
ordertransferring/adjusting
petitionerstreating
them
to
be
surplus-policy
decision-contained in G.O-adjustment of
teachers-made on the basis if actual
number of students-against total number
of students enrolled-impugned order-in
conformity with G.O dt. 17.06.2019.

B. Held, in making transfer/adjustment in
terms
of
the
policy
decision
dt
17.06.2019, the authorities have adopted
uniform method. No specific perversity
could be pointed out by the petitioners in
the list of students and teachers prepared
by the District basic Education Officer,
filed as Annexure No. 5 to the Writ
Petition
which
is
not
even
under
challenge in the present writ petition. The
impugned transfer/adjustment orders are
merely
consequential
to
the
above.
Therefore, it cannot be interfered with.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Keasrwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Tripathi, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Shyam
Sundar, learned standing counsel for the
State respondents and Sri Shashi Kant
Verma, learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 3 & 4.

Facts:

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"(a) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
15.7.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 6 of the writ
petition)
passed
by
Basic
Shiksha
Adhikari, Sonbhadra i.e. respondent no. 4
adjusting / transferring the petitioners
treating them to be surplus.

(b) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated
6.11.2019 (Vide Annexure No. 8 of the writ
petition) by which the representation has
been rejected by the District Level
Committee, adjusting / transferring the
petitioners treating them to be surplus.

(c) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to interfere
with the peaceful functioning of the
petitioners working as Assistant Teacher /
Head Teacher."

3. By the impugned order dated
6.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3,
the representation of the petitioners against
970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
their adjustment / transferred to some other
schools, has been rejected.

Submissions:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that several writ petitions are
pending before this Court involving
similar controversy and a copy of order
dated 25.7.2019 passed in one such writ
petition being Writ-A No. 11283 of 2019
(Smt. Kamla Sipal & 40 others Vs. State
of U.P. & 3 others) has been filed as
Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, and
therefore, the petitioners are entitled for
the same interim relief. The aforesaid
interim order dated 25.7.2019 in Writ-A
No. 11283 of 2019 (Smt. Kamla Sipal &
40 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others) is
reproduced as under:-

"Heard Sri Amit Saxena, learned
senior counsel assisted Sri Shatrughan
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned standing counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Amit Shukla, learned
counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that State Government
has issued a Government Order dated
17.6.2019 for adjustment of teachers in
different educational institution run by
U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad for session
2019-20 and for that detailed procedure
has been provided for "adjustment" of
teachers.
In
paragraph
2
of
the
Government Order dated 17.6.2019, it is
specifically
mentioned
that
for
"adjustment", maximum enrolment of
previous
year
shall
be
taken
for
determining the student teacher ratio. He
further submits that very same criteria was
also adopted by Basic Education Officer of
Badaun, Kushinagar, Meerut etc., but in
the case of petitioners, entirely different
criteria was adopted for calculating the
student teacher ratio. Total number of
students intake in Mid Day Meal in a
year was divided by total number of days
distribution of Mid Day Meal. He further
submits that for fixing the teacher student
ratio for "adjustment", a self generated
formula was adopted and for distribution
of schools dress, shocks, books sweater,
the cut off date is taken as total number
of students enrolled on 30th September of
that year. He further submits that
formula so adopted is beyond the
commonsense of any prudent person and
for distribution of materials, different
criteria has been adopted. He further
submits that formula so adopted for
teacher student ratio for the purpose of
"adjustment" is absolutely contravention
of Government Order dated 17.6.2019
and number of student has to be calculated
as it is done by Basic Education Officer,
Badaun, Kushinagar, Meerut District.

Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 3 and 4 prays for and
is granted two weeks time to seek
instruction about the matter.

Put up this case as fresh on
9.8.2019.

Till the next date of listing, no
coercive action shall be taken against the
petitioners."

5. Learned standing counsel as well
as learned counsel for the respondent nos.
3 & 4 submits that the impugned order has
been passed in accordance with law.

Discussion & Findings:

6. I have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties.
1 All. Manish Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971

7.

Undisputably,
the
State
Government has taken a policy decision
dated 17.6.2019 to transfer Assistant
Teachers of such institutions where they
are surplus, to such institutions where
there is single Assistant Teacher or no
Assistant Teachers, so as to achieve the
object of the Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (herein
after referred to as the Act, 2009), and
Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011
(herein after referred to as the Rules,
2011). For this purpose, the District Level
Transfer Committee has been constituted
which consist of District Magistrate as
Chairman and four other Officers as
members. The District Basic Education is
member Secretary of the Committee. The
policy intends to ensure that students may
not suffer due to lack of teachers and every
school may have sufficient teachers as far
as possible, as per available work force i.e.
Assistant Teachers.

8. The aforesaid Government dated
17.6.2019 is reproduced below:-

izs"kd]

js.kqdk dqekj]

vij eq[; lfpo]

mRrj izns'k 'kkluA

lsok esa]

1& f'k{kk funs'kd 1⁄4csfld1⁄2]

 2&lfpo] csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn]

 m0iz0 y[kuÅA

m0iz0 iz;kxjktA

csfld f'k{kk vuqHkkx&5

y[kuÅ] fnukad 17 twu 2019

fo"k;& m0iz0 csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds
fu;a=.kk/khu
lapkfyr
izkFkfed@mPp
izkFkfed
fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds
vUnj lek;kstu ds laca/k esaA

egksn;]

mi;ZqDr
fo"k;d
vius
i=kad&
f'k0fu01⁄4cs01⁄2 @16208@2019&20] fnukad 27-05-2019
dk d`i;k lanHkZ xzg.k djus dk d"V djsa] ftlds
}kjk mRrj izns'k csfld f'k{kk ifj"kn ds fu;a=.kk/khu
lapkfyr izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd
l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu ds
lEcU/k esa izLrko miyC/k djk;k x;k gSA

2& bl laca/k esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k
gqvk gS fd lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20
gsrq tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu ds fy, fuEuor
uhfr fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS&

1⁄411⁄2 tuinh; LFkkukUrj.k gsrq lfefr&

1&ftykf/kdkjh& v/;{k

2&vij ftykf/kdkjh& lnL;

3&ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh& lnL;
lfpo

4&izkpk;Z ftyk f'k{kk ,oa

izf'k{k.k laLFkku }kjk ukfer ,d

lnL; 1⁄4lEcfU/kr tuin1⁄2& lnL;

5&tuin eq[;ky; ij dk;Zjr

[k.M f'k{kk vf/kdkjh& lnL;

1⁄421⁄2 ifj"knh; izkFkfed@mPp izkFkfed
fo|ky;ksa esa lek;kstu gsrq inksa dk fu/kkZj.k&

fu%'kqYd ,oa vfuok;Z cky f'k{kk vf/kdkj
fu;ekoyh&2011
ds
fu;e&21
esa
nh
x;h
O;oLFkkuqlkj tuin ds vUnj lek;kstu gsrq fuEuor
O;oLFkk iz[;kfir gS&

21&1⁄411⁄2 ftyk eftLVasV vius&vius
tuin ds izR;sd fo|ky; dh Lohd`r v/;kid la[;k
vf/klwpuk djsxk@,slh vf/klwpuk tuin dh
csclkbV ij iznf'kZr dh tk;sxh rFkk fo|ky; dh
Lohd`r v/;kid la[;k lEcfU/kr fo|ky; dks ,oa
LFkkuh; izkf/kdkjh@ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks
Hkh lwfpr dh tk;sxh]

ijUrq ,slh vf/klwpuk ds nks ekg ds
vUnj ftyk eftLVasV mu fo|ky;ksa ds v/;kidksa dks
iqu;ksZftr djsxk] tgkW mifu;e&1⁄411⁄2 esa fufnZ"V
vf/klwpuk tkjh gksus ds iwoZ v/;kidksa dh la[;k
Lohd`r la[;k ls vf/kd gksA

1⁄421⁄2 ftyk eftLVasV izR;sd o"kZ ds tqykbZ
ekg ds iwoZ Lohd`r fofufnZ"V f'k";&v/;kid vuqikr
dks cuk;s j[kus gsrq fo|ky; dh v/;kid la[;k dk
iqujh{k.k djsxk rFkk vko';drkuqlkj v/;kidks dks
iqu;ksftr djsxkA

1⁄431⁄2 d& lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh&

lek;kstu gsrq fuEu izk:i ij lwpuk
lajf{kr dh tk;sxh&

1&fo|ky; dk uke] ;w&Mk;jk dksM
lfgrA

2&foxr o"kZ dk vf/kdre ukekaduA
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3&f'k{kd dh vko';drk 1⁄4vkj0Vh0bZ0
ekud ds vuqlkj1⁄2

4&dk;Zjr v/;kid dh la[;k

5&v/;kidks dh deh@vf/kdrkA

6&Hkfo"; esa Ldwy pyks vfHk;ku ds
vUrxZr tuin esa fo|ky;ks esa cPpks dh la[;k esa
c<+ksRrjh gksrh gS rks lek;kstu ds ek/;e ls
;Fkko';drk
uohu
lek;kstu
dk
vf/kdkj
ftykf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr esa fufgr
jgsxkA

[k&izR;sd fo|ky; esa v/;kid&Nk=
vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij inksa dk fu/kkZj.k gksus ds
mijkUr loZizFke v/;kidks ds lek;kstu dh
dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA

x&ftu fo|ky;ksa esa v/;kid&Nk=
ekud ls vf/kd v/;kid dk;Zjr gS ogkW ls mudks
gVkdj vko';drk okys fo|ky;ksa esa rSukr fd;k
tk;sxkA

?k&blds mijkUr gh ;fn dksbZ f'k{kd
tuin ds Hkhrj ,d Cykd ls nwljs Cykd 1⁄4xzkeh.k ls
xzkeh.k {ks= esa ,oa uxjh; ls uxjh; {ks= esa1⁄2
ikjLifjd lek;kstu pkgrk gS rks ml ij lfefr
}kjk fopkj fd;k tk;sxkA xzkeh.k ls uxj {ks= esa ,oa
uxj {ks= ls xzkeh.k {ks= esa ikjLifjd lek;kstu ugha
fd;k tk,xkA lek;kstu esa ;g /;ku j[kk tk;sxk
fd izR;sd mPp izkFkfed fo|ky;ksa esa foKku@xf.kr
ds v/;kidksa dh miyC/krk jgsA

M& v/;kid&Nk= la[;k ds vkdyu ds
dze esa ekud ls vf/kd v/;kid@v/;kfidkvksa dks
vU;= lek;ksftr fd;s tkus ds i'pkr lacaf/kr
fo|ky; esa fdlh vU; v/;kid dk lek;kstu ugha
fd;k tk;sxkA

p&ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ;g lqfuf'pr fd;k
tk;sxk fd lek;kstu ds mijkUr dksbZ fo|ky; cUn
,oa ,dy u jg tk;sA

N& ,sls fo|ky; tgkW ij Nk=kvksa dk
ukekadu vf/kd gS] mu fo|ky;ksa esa de ls de ,d
efgyk v/;kfidk dh rSukrh vfuok;Z :i ls dh
tk;A ftykf/kdkjh blesa foosdkuqlkj vko';drk
fu/kkZfjr djsaxsA tuin Lrjh; lfefr }kjk lek;kstu
esa fnO;kax ,oa lsuk esa dk;Zjr toku ds ifr@iRuh
dks ojh;rk nh tk;sxhA

t& tuin esa lek;kstu izfdz;k esa fdlh
izdkj dh dfBukbZ ds fujkdj.k gsrq tuin Lrj ij
xfBr lfefr l{ke gksxh A

>& tuin esa lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh
15 tqykbZ] 2019 rd iw.kZ dj yh tk;s rFkk mlds
mijkUr dksbZ Hkh tuinh; lek;kstu ugh fd;k
tk;sxkA

m0iz0
csfld
f'k{kk
ifj"kn
ds
fu;a=.kk/khu
lapkfyr
izkFkfed@mPp
izkFkfed
fo|ky;ksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2019&20 gsrq tuin ds
vUnj lek;kstu dh dk;Zokgh mDr fu/kkZfjr
izfdz;kuqlkj] ikjnf'kZrkiw.kZ <aXk ls lqfuf'pr dh
tk;sA mDr lek;kstu gsrq fo|ky;okj v/;kidksa dk
vkadyu] ukekadu ,o ukekadu ds lkis{k okLrfod
:i ls mifLFkr Nk=ksa dh la[;k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k
tk;sxk A tuinh; lfefr dks mifLFkr Nk=ksa dh
okLrfod la[;k ls voxr djku s dk dk;Z ftyk
csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk gksxk A blesa =`fV ds fy,
ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh lh/ks rkSj ij mRrjnk;h
gksaxsA fdlh Hkh Lrj ij vfu;ferrk dh f'kdk;r
izkIr gksus ij izR;sd Lerj ij mRrjnkf;Ro dk
fu/kkZj.k dk fu;ekuqlkj dBksj dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA
Hkonh;k
js.kqdk dqekj
vij eq[; lfpoA

9. The policy decision of the State
Government being Government Order
dated 17.6.2019 is not under challenge.
Merely the order of transfer / adjustment
has been challenged by the petitioners.

10. In making transfer / adjustment
in terms of the policy decision dated
17.6.2019, the authorities have adopted
uniform method. No specific perversity
could be pointed out by the petitioners in
the list of students and teachers prepared
by the District Basic Education Officer,
filed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition
which is not even under challenge in the
present writ petition. The impugned
transfer / adjustment orders are merely
consequential to the above. Therefore, it
cannot interfered with.

11. Petitioners have completely
failed to show any prejudice caused to
them by the impugned transfer orders.

12. The State is under constitutional
obligation under Article 21A of the
1 All. Vivek Kumar Verma Vs. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Ors.
973
Constitution of India and also under
statutory obligation under the Act, 2009
and the Rules framed thereunder, to
provide free and quality education to all
children of the age of 6 to 14 years which
intends a systematic change to empower
deprived Sections of the Society. The
present petition is clearly intended to
frustrate the very object of the Act, 2009
and fundamental rights of children under
Article 21A of the Constitution of India by
opposing their transfer / adjustment orders
without any fundamental or statutory right
to remain on the place of present posting.
Paragraph No.3(d) of the G.O. dated
17.06.2019 requires to secure certain
information. The last paragraph of the
G.O.
contains
policy
decision
that
adjustment of teachers shall be made on
the basis of actual number of students in
the school as against the total number of
students enrolled. This exercise has been
undertaken by the respondents and on that
basis the impugned adjustment order has
been passed. Thus, impugned adjustment
order is in conformity with the policy
decision of the State Government dated
17.06.2019. Therefore, the
impugned
adjustment order cannot be interfered with.

13. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any good reason to interfere
with the impugned transfer / adjustment
orders. Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 973

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ A No. 19124 of 2019
Vivek Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Chitranshi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ankit Saran

A. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108 -
Challenging-impugned
order-rejecting
Petitioner's
claim-for
compassionate
appointment-on the ground-declaration of
civil death-of petitioner's father-by civil courton 07.07.2018-by then-Petitioner's fatherretired-compassionate appoint-not availableonly upon expiry of 7 years-from the date he
went missing-then declaration by civil courtpermissible-no presumption-if specific date of
death proved-present case-no proof or
disclosure of date of death.

B. Held, that it is only upon expiry of 07
years from the time such person went
missing that declaration of civil death
would be permissible in terms of Section
108
of
the
Evidence
Act.
This
presumption, however, would not arise
when a specific date of death is proved by
evidence. In the facts of the present case,
the date of death is neither disclosed nor
is proved. The Division Bench judgment,
therefore, also would not be of any help
to petitioner's cause.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar
Mishra, J.)

1. Challenge is laid in this petition to
an order dated 1.5.2019, passed by U.P.
Rajya
Vidyut Utpadan
Nigam
Ltd.,
Lucknow, whereby petitioner's application
for grant of compassionate appointment is
rejected. Order impugned records that
declaration of civil death of petitioner's
father has been granted by civil court on