# Manju Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 12 ILRA 939
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-11-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17977 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manju-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48074
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Posting Rules, 2008-Section 8(2)
(d)-Claim of Inter-District transfer rejected-ground
that it is an aspirational district transfer-not
permitted under G.O. dated 02.12.2019-Petitioner
appointed in Bahraich-seek transfer to Bareilyhusband running a business in Bareily-2 children
residing there along with their father and
grandparents-Petitioner
is
a
cancer
patienttreatment going in Bareily-Transfer outside the
district can be considered under the Rules in
normal circumstances u/R 8 (2) (d) of Rules, 2008not before 5 years of completing their posting-only
in
exceptional
circumstances-to
decide
the
circumstances-direction issued-W.P. disposed.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1 Writ (A) No.878 of 2020 (Divya Goswami Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.

2 Aradhana & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-Writ (A)
No.9177 of 2021

## Text

12 All. Manju Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
939

29. In the full bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Gokaran Singh
(supra), it has been clearly held that once
notice has been sent and the land lord
showed his willingness to accept rent while
determining tenancy, it was incumbent
upon the tenant to pay rent to the land lord
directly and if he refused, in that event he
would have to deposit rent in Court because
in that circumstances, as was held in
Indrasani's case, the rent shall be deemed to
have been paid to the land lord. Vide
paragraph 28, the full bench has held thus:

"In Indrasani's case (supra), it has
been held that if the amount of rent at the
correct rate is tendered by the tenant and the
same is refused by the landlord, which covers
to a particular period, tenant can not be held
to be defaulter in respect there of. After
refusal of the rent by the landlord, tenant is
legally entitled to deposit the same in the
Court under Section 30, but if thereafter,
landlord serves notice of demand again at a
higher rate, tenant need not tender the
amount which has been deposited under
Section 30 again but he will be under
obligation to tender the amount of rent due at
the correct or admitted rate of rent. Without
tendering the said amount, the tenant will
have no right to deposit the same under
Section 30 of the Act."

30. Thus, legal position that emerges is
that even if the tenant has been paying rent
under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972,
once he received notice, he should pay over
rent to the land lord directly and if he refused,
he should send money-order to him and then
if the money-order is refused, he must make
deposit under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13
of 1972. To get the stautory protection, the
tenant is required to deposit rent directly in
Court on the first date of hearing alongwith
advocate fee etc. as have been prescribed for
under Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13 of
1972. Merely because tenant has been
depositing rent under Section 30 of the Act
No. 13 of 1972 since prior to the notice and
continued to deposit under Section 30 of the
Act No. 13 of 1972, such deposit as such
would not suffice the requirement of law that
is mandated as per relevant provisions nor,
deposit made under Section 30 of the Act No.
13 of 1972, itself be a guarantee to the
protection under Section 20(4) of the Act No.
13 of 1972. Section 20(4) of the Act No. 13
of 1972 requires deposit to be made in court
itself where the case is going on. Nothing is
reflected from the findings returned by the
trial judge that any such deposit was ever
made by the petitioner tenant so as to give
him benefit of protection under Section 20(4)
of the Act No. 13 of 1972. Thus findings
returned by the trial judge was clearly
unsustainable and the court below is justified
in reversing the same.

31. In view of above, I do not find any
merit in this petition. Petition Lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed with no order as to
cost. Consigned to records.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 939
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 17977 of 2021
With other cases

Manju Pal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, Sri Lakshmi Kant
Singh
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mrs. Archana Singh, Sri Pramesh
Dutt Tripathi

Civil Law - Posting Rules, 2008-Section 8(2)
(d)-Claim of Inter-District transfer rejected-ground
that it is an aspirational district transfer-not
permitted under G.O. dated 02.12.2019-Petitioner
appointed in Bahraich-seek transfer to Bareilyhusband running a business in Bareily-2 children
residing there along with their father and
grandparents-Petitioner
is
a
cancer
patienttreatment going in Bareily-Transfer outside the
district can be considered under the Rules in
normal circumstances u/R 8 (2) (d) of Rules, 2008not before 5 years of completing their posting-only
in
exceptional
circumstances-to
decide
the
circumstances-direction issued-W.P. disposed.
(E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1 Writ (A) No.878 of 2020 (Divya Goswami Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.

2 Aradhana & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.-Writ (A)
No.9177 of 2021

3. Smt. Ruchi Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ (A)
No.14395 of 2018

4. Aradhana & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Writ (A)
No.9177 of 2021
5. Smt. Ruchi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ (A)
No.14395 of 2018

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. All the above referred writ petitions
involve identical questions of law and facts.
The Writ Petition (A) No.17977 of 2021 is
being treated as the leading writ petition
and the facts pertaining to the same is being
considered for deciding the controversy
involved.

2. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel
appearing for the Respondents Nos.2 & 4
as also learned Standing Counsel appearing
for the State-Respondents.

3. The writ petition (Writ-A No.17977
of 2021) has been filed assailing the order
dated 31.12.2020 downloaded from the
website of the U.P. Board of Basic
Education,
Prayagraj,
whereby
and
whereunder the claim of the petitioner for
Inter-District Transfer from Bahraich to
Bareilly, has been rejected on the ground
that the transfer sought was an aspirational
district transfer and not permitted under the
Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Teacher in Primary
School in District Bahraich vide order
dated 31.12.2015 and joined her services
on 01.01.2016. In the year 2019 the
petitioner was placed in Primary School
Ahiraura,
Block
Chhitaura,
District
Bahraich under placement order dated
05.12.2019 and joined the said institution
on 16.12.2019. The husband of the
petitioner is running a business in District
Bareilly. The petitioner has two children, 11
years old and 3 years old and both are
residing at Bareilly along with their father
and grandparents. The petitioner herself is a
cancer patient whose treatment is going on
at Kishlata Cancer Hospital, Bareilly. The
petitioner is stated to be on medical leave
and undergoing chemotherapy at Bareilly.
The cancer has also affected the lungs of
the petitioner and she is also undergoing
treatment for her lung ailment at Yashoda
Cancer Institute at Ghaziabad. Relevant
documents have been filed on record to
establish that the petitioner is a cancer
patient and is undergoing treatment. The
petitioner has sought Inter-District Transfer
12 All. Manju Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
941
on medical grounds considering her ailment
to District Bareilly from District Bahraich
her present place of posting.

5. It is contended that the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008
have been framed under Section 19 (1) of
the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972. Rule 8
of the 2008 Rules provides for InterDistrict Transfer. Rule 21 of the U.P. Basic
Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981
also relates to transfer of the teachers. The
State Government has issued a Government
Order dated 02.12.2019 laying down the
policy for the year 2019-20 for InterDistrict
Transfer.
Clause
13
of
the
Government
Order
dated
02.12.2019
imposes restriction upon the teachers
appointed in the aspirational districts like
Siddharth
Nagar,
Shravasti,
Bahraich,
Sonebhadra,
Chandauli,
Fatehpur,
Chitrakoot and Balrampur. The Clause 13
of the Government Order dated 2.12.2019
is being reproduced here under:-

"13.
आकांक्षी
(Aspirational)
जिपदों यथा-नसद्धाथमिगर, श्रावस्ती, बहराइच,
सोिभद्र, चन्दौली, फतेहपुर, नचत्रकूट एवं
बलरामपुर में से प्रत्येक जिपद से उतिे ही
अध्यापकों को अन्यत्र जिपदों में स्थािान्तररत
नकया जायेगा, नजतिे अध्यापकों द्वारा अन्य
जिपदों से सम्बन्धन्धत आकांक्षी जिपद में आिे
के नलए स्थािान्तरण हेतु अिुरोध नकया जायेगा।
परन्तु, यह प्रावधाि भारतीय सेिा/वायु सेिा/िौ
सेिा/अधम सैनिक बलों यथा, CRPF/ CISF/
SSB/ASSAM RIFLES/ITBP/NSG/BSF, से
सम्बन्धन्धत प्रकरणों पर लागू िही होगा। "

6. The Government Order dated
02.12.2019 came to be challenged in a
bunch of writ petitions leading amongst
them being Writ (A) No.878 of 2020
(Divya Goswami Vs. State of U.P. and
others). The writ petition was finally
decided vide order dated 03.11.2020. The
Court
concluded
that
the
following
observations/directions be necessarily kept
in mind before finalizing the list of teachers
seeking inter-district transfer:-

"(I) No inter district transfer shall
be done in the mid of the academic session.

(II) Transfer application should
be entertained strictly in the light of the
provisions as contained in Rule 8(2)(a) (b)
and (d) of the Posting Rules, 2008.

(III)
Once
a
teacher
has
successfully exercised the option for inter
district transfer, no second opportunity
shall be afforded to any teacher of any
category except in case of female teacher
who has already availed benefit of inter
district transfer on the ground of parents
dependency,
prior
to
her
marriage.
However, in case if the marriage has taken
place then she will have only one
opportunity to exercise option for inter
district transfer either on the ground of
parents dependency or spouse residence/
in-laws residence.

(IV) In case of grave medical
emergency for any incurable or serious
disease that may as of necessity, require
immediate medical help and sustained
medical treatment, either personally or for
the spouse, a second time opportunity to
apply for inter district transfer should be
afforded to such a teacher even if he/she
had exercised such option for inter district
transfer for any other reason in the past.

(V) Application of differently
abled person should have very sympathetic
consideration looking to physical disability
but they should also have only one time
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity to exercise option for inter
district transfer. In case of female teachers,
such exception would apply, as referable to
rule 8(2) (d) of Posting Rules, 2008.

(VI) In case of female teacher's
right to seek transfer, relaxation given
under Rule 8(2)(d) shall be read with rule
8(2) (b) and relaxation shall, therefore, be
subject to rule 8(2) (b).

(VII) Save as observed and
directed herein above (Direction Nos.III, IV
and V), no second opportunity to exercise
option for inter district transfer be made
available to any candidate of any category
whatsoever.

(VIII) The exercise of interdistrict transfer since is exception to the
general rule of appointment and posting,
every application for transfer has to be
addressed to by the competent authority
keeping in mind the objectives set forth
under the Act, 2009 and Posting Rules,
2008 as amended in the year 2010 and
must be acceded to citing a special
circumstance
specific
to
the
case
considered."

7. The order dated 03.11.2020 was
modified by the Court vide order dated
03.12.2020 to the extent that and the
Direction No.1 in the order dated 03.11.2020
would not be pressed in the cases of medical
emergency thus permitting transfers in mid
academic session. The medical emergency
cases were required to be dealt with by the
Government strictly in accordance with its
own guidelines and the prescribed procedure
to identify such cases which were to be
religiously followed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that after the decision of this Court in
the case of Divya Goswami (supra) the State
Government issued Government Order dated
15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020.
Both
the
Government
Order
dated
15.12.2020 and the circular did not contain
any restriction with regard to aspirational
districts. He submits that Clause 13 of the
Government
Order
dated
02.12.2019
provided that from the aspirational districts
only such number of teachers would be
transferred as the number of requests for
transfer from other districts to the said
districts are received. The Government Order
dated 02.12.2019 having been struck down
by this Court and the State Government
having issued the Government Order dated
15.12.2020 and circular dated 17.12.2020
which did not provide anything about the
aspirational districts, the inter-district transfer
request of the petitioner was required to be
considered positively and was not liable to be
rejected. Reliance is also placed upon a
Government Order dated 29.03.2018 which
provides in Clause II(vii) that transfers out of
aspirational districts could be considered after
two years of the posting by accepting options.
Reliance is also placed upon information
received under the Right to Information Act
from Government of India, Niti Ayog, New
Delhi obtained on 18.01.2021 to demonstrate
that now no restrictions have been imposed
by the Central Government as regards Inter
District Transfers of Teachers and the same is
within the domain of the State Government.
It is thus contended that in the absence of any
restrictions
imposed
by
subsequent
Government Orders regarding Inter-District
Transfers the request of transfer of the
petitioner is liable to be considered under
Rule 8 of the Rules, 2008 and Rule 21 of the
1981 Rules.

9. Per contra, Smt. Archana Singh,
learned counsel for the Respondent No.2
has resisted by the writ petition by filing
12 All. Manju Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
943
counter affidavit sworn by the Block
Education Officer District Bahraich and
submits that the entire proceedings of InterDistrict Transfer of teachers working in
Institutions run by the Basic Education
Board
is
done
through
a
software
developed by NIC in accordance with the
provisions contained in the Government
Order issued by the Basic Education
Department. For the Academic Session
2019-20, a transfer policy was framed vide
Government
Order
dated
02.12.2019.
Clause 13 of the Government Order
imposes restriction upon Inter-District
Transfers and provides that from the
districts
Siddharth
Nagar,
Shravasti,
Bahraich,
Sonebhadra,
Chandauli,
Fatehpur, Chitrakoot and Balrampur only
such number of teachers would be
transferred as the number of requests for
transfer from other districts to the said
districts are received. The validity of the
said clause has been upheld by a Division
Bench of this Court in Writ (A) No.9177 of
2021 (Aradhana and another vs. State of
U.P. & 5 others) decided on 05.08.2021.
Clause 8 of the Government Order dated
02.12.2019
provides
for
fixation
of
preferential points and the transfer requests
shall be entertained on the basis of the
preferential
points
obtained
by
each
candidate seeking transfer.

10. It is next contended by learned
counsel for the Respondent No.2 that the
writ petitioner in her online application
(Registration
No.50374966)
opted
for
being transferred to district Bareilly,
Pilibhit and Budaun. The petitioner has
been awarded 4 marks for tenure of service,
10 marks for serious disease of self, 5
marks for being female teacher, total marks
19 but her case has not been considered on
account of transfer being sought from
aspirational districts as the same has been
restricted by Clause 13 of the Government
Order dated 02.12.2019. The petitioner,
admittedly, does not fall under any of the
exempted categories under the said Clause.
It is submitted that the claim of transfer
from aspirational districts has been laid to
rest by a decision this Court dated
13.8.2018 passed in Writ (A) No.14395 of
2018 (Smt. Ruchi vs. State of U.P. and
others) and 126 connected writ petitions by
holding that the writ petitioners working in
aspirational districts have no right for Inter
District Transfer. Petitioner does not have
any
legally
protected
or
judicially
enforceable subsisting right to ask for
mandamus
for
transfer
from
the
aspirational
district.
Therefore
her
application for Inter-District Transfer have
been lawfully rejected in view of the
decision of the Board.

11. It is further submitted that the post
of Assistant Teacher in Primary School is a
district level cadre and Inter-District
Transfer is an exceptional measure not to
be made routinely except in terms of Rule
21 of the 1981 Rules. It is thus submitted
that the writ petition is misconceived and is
liable to be dismissed.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has refuted the averments made in the
counter
affidavit
by
filing
rejoinder
affidavit.
It
is
submitted
that
the
respondents have been adopting pick and
choose policy in affecting the inter-district
transfers. At one instance the genuine
transfer request of the petitioner has been
denied on the ground that the transfer is
being sought from an aspirational district
and on the other hand several transfers have
been affected from aspirational districts of
Bahraich to Hapur, Bahraich to Lakhimpur
Kheri, Bahraich to Unnao, Bahraich to
Barabanki. Documents to substantiate the
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
plea have been filed as Annexures RA-1 to
RA-6. It is further contended that the case
of the writ petitioner is liable to be
considered in the light of the decision of
this Court in the case of Divya Goswami
(Supra).

13. Having heard the respective
learned counsels for the parties and having
perused the record, the Court finds that the
case of the writ petitioner has not be
considered only on the ground that the
transfer
is
being
sought
from
an
aspirational district and such transfers from
aspirational
districts
have
been
not
permitted by Clause 13 of the Government
Order dated 02.12.2019.

14. The Court further finds that the
aspirational
districts
programme
was
launched by the Prime Minister in January,
2018
which
aimed
to
quickly
and
effectively transform 112 most under
developed districts across the country. The
broad contours of the programme are
convergence (of Central, State Schemes)
Collaboration (of Central, State Level
Nodal Officers & District Collectors) and
competition
among
districts
through
monthly delta ranking; all driven by a mass
movement. This programme focuses on the
strength of each district, identifying low
handing fruits for immediate improvement
and measuring progress by ranking districts
on a monthly basis. The ranking is based on
the incremental progress made across 49
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) under 5
Broad Socio-Economic Themes i.e. Health
and Nutrition, Education, Agriculture &
Water Resources, Financial Inclusion &
Skill Development and Infrastructure.

15. The Court further finds that a
Coordinate Bench of this Court while
dealing with the issues of Inter-District
Transfers as also the Government Order
dated 02.12.2019 laying down the Transfer
Policy for 2019-20 in the case of Divya
Goswami (Supra) deliberately did not deal
with the Inter-District Transfers from
aspirational districts and to the restrictions
imposed by Clause 13 of the Government
Order dated 02.12.2019 presumably on the
ground that the issue of transfer from
aspirational districts stood decided by the
decisions rendered in Writ (A) No.9177 of
2021 (Aradhana and another Vs. State of
U.P. & 5 others) as also Writ (A) No.14395
of 2018 (Smt. Ruchi Vs. State of U.P. &
others) and 126 connected writ petitions
holding
that
candidates
working
in
aspirational districts have no right to seek
transfer
from
aspirational
districts.
However, the Transfer Policy evolved
subsequent to the decision of this Court in
the case of Divya Goswami (Supra) vide
Government Order dated 15.12.2020 and
Circular dated 17.12.2020 do not impose
any restriction for Inter-District Transfer
from aspirational districts. In the opinion of
the Court, the request of the petitioner for
transfer from District Bahraich to District
Bareilly is required to be sympathetically
considered in the light of the provisions of
the
U.P.
Basic
Education
Teachers
(Posting) Rules 2008, read with Rule 21 of
the Basic Education (Teachers) Service
Rules, 1981 as also any policy framed by
the State Government for Inter-District
Transfer.
Admittedly,
no
policy
for
effecting Inter-District Transfer is in vogue
currently.

16. The petitioner was appointed as
an Assistant Teacher in the Basic Institution
is a Member of District Level Cadre, which
has been allotted to her after considering
the preference of the teachers concerned.
Being a Member of of District Level Cadre,
the petitioner is required to remain posted
12 All. Sohan Lal Vs. Estate of Late Chunni Lal & Ors.
945
within the cadre and transfer beyond the
cadre/outside the district is ordinarily not
concerned under the Rules. A transfer
outside the district can be considered in
normal circumstances only in accordance
with the Rules. Rule 8(2)(d) of the Posting
Rules, 2008 provides that in normal
circumstances the applications for InterDistrict Transfer of Female Teachers will
not the entertained before 5 years of
completing their posting. However, the
Rule contemplates that in exceptional or
extra-ordinary circumstances an application
for transfer can be considered by the Basic
Education
Board/Director
(Basic
Education) even before the expiry of such
term. The question whether in a given case
the
exceptional
or
extra-ordinary
circumstances exists or not has to be
examined
by
the
Basic
Education
Board/Director (Basic Education).

17. In such circumstance, the writ
petition stands disposed of by permitting
the petitioner to represent the matter before
the
Director,
Basic
Education,
U.P.,
annexing all the materials in support of her
plea
that
there
exists
exceptional
circumstances justifying her transfer from
district Bahraich to district Bareilly along
with certified copy of the order of this
Court within two weeks from today.

18. In the eventuality of such a
representation being filed within the time
allowed, it is expected that the Director,
Basic Education, U.P., shall examine as to
whether the ground on which the petitioner
is seeking her transfer would fall within the
exceptional circumstances or not and pass a
reasoned and speaking order within further
period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the representation of the
petitioner along with certified copy of this
order.

19. The writ petition stands disposed
of
with
the
aforesaid
observations/
directions.
----------
(2022) 12 ILRA 945
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3199 of 2019

Sohan Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
Estate of Late Chunni Lal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Ankit Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dinesh Kr. Raizada, Sarvajeet
Dubey

Civil
Law
-
Hindu
Adoptions
and
Maintenance
Act,
1956-Section
16Petitioner claimed to be an adopted son of one
employee in Irrigation Department-he died in
harness-Application
for
succession
decided
exparte in Petitioner's favour-Respondent filed
restoration claiming adoption earlier to that of
Petitioner-allowed-case was dismissed-Appeal
allowed against the Petitioner-impugned orderdirected succession in favour of Respondentadoption deed of the Respondent no.2 is validduly recorded in the service book-Petitioner
recorded as nephew-adoption of Respondent is
valid u/s 16 of the Act, 1956.

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Lakshman Singh Kothari Vs Smt. Rum Kanwar
reported in AIR 1961 SC 1378