# Manoj Kumar & Ors v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 808
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-17
- **Case number:** WRIT A No. 881 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45799
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 21
- Transfer Policy dated 02.12.2019 - Policy
Decision - Power of the Court to interfere -
The government policy dated 02.12.2019 is in
the nature of concession permitting inter
district transfer - It give some weightage or
preference to female assistant teachers or to
physical disable teacher for transfer which
may be for variety of reasons including social
reasons - It is a policy decision of the State
Government - A policy decision is in the
domain of the executive authority of the State
- The court should not embark on the
unchartered ocean of public policy and should
not question the efficacy or otherwise of such
policy so long it does not offend any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or
Statute - Held - The aforesaid policy decision
of the State Government is logical. (Para 8, 9,
10 and 13)
Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
six charges without showing any evidence
and
without
any
discussion,
entire
proceedings are vitiated in law.

17. In the result, writ petition is
allowed.
Impugned
orders
dated
30.04.2002 (Annexure 9 to the writ
petition) and 11.10.2006 (Annexure 15 to
the writ petition) are hereby set aside.
Petitioner
shall
be
entitled
to
all
consequential benefits. However, this
judgment shall not prevent competent
authority to proceed afresh after the stage
of reply to charge sheet if it so decide, in
accordance with law.
----------
(2020)06ILR A808
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

WRIT A No. 881 of 2020

Manoj Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus

State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Navin Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Santosh Kumar

A. Civil Law - U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 - Rule 21
- Transfer Policy dated 02.12.2019 - Policy
Decision - Power of the Court to interfere -
The government policy dated 02.12.2019 is in
the nature of concession permitting inter
district transfer - It give some weightage or
preference to female assistant teachers or to
physical disable teacher for transfer which
may be for variety of reasons including social
reasons - It is a policy decision of the State
Government - A policy decision is in the
domain of the executive authority of the State
- The court should not embark on the
unchartered ocean of public policy and should
not question the efficacy or otherwise of such
policy so long it does not offend any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or
Statute - Held - The aforesaid policy decision
of the State Government is logical. (Para 8, 9,
10 and 13)
Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. U.O.I. Vs Shankar Lal Soni, (2010) 12 SCC
563
2. Ehsan Khalid Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2014) 13
SCC 356
3. Netai Bag Vs St. of W.B., (2000) 8 SCC 262
4. Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., (2007) 6 SCC 44
5. Balco Employees Union (registered) Vs
U.O.I., (2002) 2 SCC 333
6. Pearless General and Investment & ors. Vs
R.B.I., (1992) 2 SCC 343
7. Premium Granites Vs St. of Tam., (1994) 2
SCC 691
8. R.K. Garg Vs U.O.I., (1996) 2 SCC 405
9. Bhavesh D. Parish Vs U.O.I., (2000) 5 SCC
471
10. Narmada Bachao Andolan & ors. Vs U.O.I.,
(2000) 10 SCC 664
11. M.P. Oil Extraction Vs St. of M.P. (1997) 7
SCC 592
12. St. of Punjab Vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga,
(1998) 4 SCC 117
13. U.O.I. Vs Shankar Lal Soni, (2010) 12 SCC
503
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Navin Kumar Sharma,
learned counsel for the petitioners,
6 All. Manoj Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 809
learned standing counsel for respondent
No.1 and Sri Santosh Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

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

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to delete the
column-8 (4) clause of Government Order
(Transfer Policy) dated 02.12.2019.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to extend
the benefit of 05 additional quality points
to the female teachers."

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the impugned
policy decision of the State-Government
for the transfer of Assistant Teachers in
Basic Schools run by the U.P. Basic
Education
Board,
is
discriminatory
inasmuch as a discrimination has been
made between male assistant teachers and
female assistant teachers in matters of
transfer since five marks under Clause
8(4) of the Transfer Policy has been
allotted to female teachers and they have
been permitted to opt for transfer after
one year of service while the same facility
has not been extended to male assistant
teachers.

4. Learned counsels for the
respondents supports the policy decision.

5. I have carefully considered the
submissions of the learned counsels for
the parties.

6. It is well settled that transfer is
not a right of an employee. The service
conditions of assistant teachers are
provided in the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers)
Service
Rules,
1981
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules
1981'). Rule 21 provides that there shall
be no transfer of any teacher from the
rural local area to an urban local area or
vice versa or from one local urban area to
another of the same district or from local
area of one district to that of another
district except on the request of or with
the consent of the teacher himself and
in either case, approval of the board
shall be necessary.

7. Rule 8(2) of U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers)
(Posting)
Rules,
2008
specifies minimum years to be served by
a newly appointed male teacher and
female teacher in backward areas. Clause
(c) permits mutual transfer subject to
certain conditions, within the district from
general block to backward block or vice
versa only after the teacher has served for
minimum prescribed period. Clause (d)
enables the board to entertain application
for inter district transfer as an exception
with some relaxation to female teachers.
Thus, inter district transfer is not a right
of any male or female assistant teachers
as per rules aforementioned.

8.

The
government
policy/
government order in question dated
02.12.2019 is in the nature of concession
permitting inter district transfer. None of
the petitioners have any statutory right of
inter
district
transfer.
The
State
Government may even withdraw this
concession.
The
assistant
teachers
intending to take benefit of the aforesaid
government
order
dated
02.12.2019
granting concession subject to certain
conditions, have no right to dictate
conditions or to say that a particular
condition or conditions should be deleted.
810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
This view is supported by law laid down
in the case of Union of India vs.
Shankar Lal Soni, (2010) 12 SCC 563.

9. The impugned transfer policy
dated 02.12.2019 is a policy decision of
the
State
Government.
The
State
Government has taken a policy decision
in its wisdom to give some weightage or
preference to female assistant teachers for
transfer which may be for variety of
reasons including social reasons. Clause
(2) of para-8 provides for 10 quality point
marks to differently abled assistant
teachers. Clause (3) provides for 10 point
quality marks to those teachers who is
either himself or his/ her spouse or
children are suffering from the specified
critical diseases. Clause (4), which has
been challenged in the present writ
petition, provides for 5 quality point
marks to female teachers. Clause (5)
provides for 10 quality point marks to
such male or female teachers whose
spouse is in government service. Clause
(6) provides for five quality point marks
to single parents, e.g. widow/ widowed/
divorced etc. Clause (7) provides for 5
quality point marks to teachers who
received national award and 3 quality
point marks to teachers who received
State award.

10. Thus, clause (2) to (6) of
paragraph-8 of the impugned policy
decision provides for some weightage by
means of quality point marks to eligible
teachers for transfer who eighter on
account of physical disability or serious
ailments or special circumstances or
social reasons, need to be given some
preference in transfer of the districts
opted by them for transfer. The aforesaid
policy decision of the State Government
is logical. It is neither grossly arbitrary
nor unfair nor unreasonable nor irrational.
It is not violative of any of the provisions
of the Constitution or contrary to the
statutory provisions. Therefore, the clause
(4) of paragraph-8 of the policy decision/
government
order
dated
02.12.2019,
cannot be interfered. This is also the ratio
of decision of Hon'ble Supreme court in
the case of Ehsan Khalid vs. Union of
India and others, 2014 (13) SCC 356
(Paras-8 and 9).

11. Thus, the State Government is
entitled to make pragmatic adjustments
and policy decision, which may be
necessary or called for under the
prevalent peculiar circumstances. The
court cannot strike down a policy decision
or any clause thereof, merely because it
feels that another decision would have
been fairer or wiser or more scientific or
logical. It is neither within the domain of
the courts nor the scope of judicial review
to embark upon an enquiry as to whether
a particular public policy is wise or
whether better public policy can be
evolved. The court cannot strike down a
policy at the behest of a petitioner merely
because it has been urged that a different
policy would have been fairer or wiser or
more scientific or more logical. Reference
in
regard
to
the
aforesaid
settled
principles of law may be had to the
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Netai Bag vs. Stae of West
Bengal, (2000) 8 SCC 262 (para-20),
Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh vs. State of
U.P. and others, (2007) 6 SCC 44 (para12),
Balco
Employees
Union
(registered) vs. Union of India, (2002) 2
SCC 333 (para-33 to 46), Pearless
General and Investment and others vs.
Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC
343 (para-31), Premium Granites vs.
State of Tamilnadu, (1994) 2 SCC 691,
6 All. Committee of Management & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 811
R.K. Garg vs. Union of India, (1996) 2
SCC 405 (para-7) and Bhavesh D.
Parish vs. Union of India, (2000) 5 SCC
471
(para-26),
Narmada
Bachao
Andolan and others vs. Union of India,
(2000) 10 SCC 664 (para-229) and M.P.
Oil Extraction vs. State of M.P. (1997)
7 SCC 592 (para-41) and State of
Punjab vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga,
(1998) 4 SCC 117 (para-25).

12. In the case of Union of India vs.
Shankar Lal Soni, (2010) 12 SCC 503
(para-18)
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
explained its judgment in the case of Ram
Singh (supra) and held that decision to
grant a certain concession or certain
benefit and the conditions for their
grant
are
matters
for
the
administrators alone and the court
should not interfere in the matter on
the premise that it was of the opinion
that some of the conditions imposed
were not justified.

13. In view of the above discussion
and considering the law laid down by the
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
various
judgments including in the case case of
M.P. Oil Extraction (supra), it can be
safely concluded that the executive
authority of the State must be held to be
within its competence to frame a policy
for the administration in basic schools
unless the policy framed is absolutely
capricious and not being informed by
reason whatsoever and arbitrary. A policy
decision can also not be sustained if
policy offends constitutional provisions or
comes into conflict with any statutory
provision. In other words, a policy
decision is in the domain of the executive
authority of the State. The court should
not embark on the unchartered ocean of
public policy and should not question the
efficacy or otherwise of such policy so
long it does not offend any of the
provisions of the Constitution of India or
Statute.

14. The impugned paragraph of the
government order/ policy decision dated
02.12.2019 neither offends Article 14 of
the Constitution of India nor offends other
constitutional provisions nor it is in
conflict with any of the provisions of the
Rules. Therefore, no interference can be
made by this court.

15. For all the reasons afore-stated, I
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and
is hereby dismissed.
----------

(2020)06ILR A811
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.05.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

WRIT A No. 909 of 2020

Committee of Management & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri J.P.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Srivastava III

A. Civil Law - Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 - Section 16(G) - Regulations
framed under Act, 1921 - Regulation 39 of
Chapter III - Suspension of Teacher -
Approval
or
Disapproval
by
DIOS
-
Opportunity of Hearing - If all the required