# Smt. Sahina Praveen v. Director of Education and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 584
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-08-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25442 of 2002
- **Bench:** Jagdish Bhalla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sahina-praveen-v-director-of-education-and-others-39859
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

India-Article
226-
Cancellation of transfer order can be
interfered only on two counts; firstly,
violation of law, secondly allegation of
malafide. There is no foundation in the
writ petition with regard to violation of
law except the ground of cadre, which
has already been decided-as far as
allegations of malafides are concerned,
vague, allegations have been raised,
which too the Petitioner counsel failed to
substantiate. (Held in para 8).

In light of above, no interference is
warranted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
584
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.08.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25442 of 2002

Smt. Sahina Parveen

...Petitioner
Versus
Director of Education (Madhyamik) and
others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rahul Jain
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri Raj Kumar Jain
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Yogesh Agarwal
S.C.

Constition
of
India-Article
226-
Cancellation of transfer order can be
interfered only on two counts; firstly,
violation of law, secondly allegation of
malafide. There is no foundation in the
writ petition with regard to violation of
law except the ground of cadre, which
has already been decided-as far as
allegations of malafides are concerned,
vague, allegations have been raised,
which too the Petitioner counsel failed to
substantiate. (Held in para 8).

In light of above, no interference is
warranted under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, J.)

1. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Senior Advocate, Sri Ashok
Khare regarding maintainability of this
petition on the ground that the petitioner
is not the affected party, therefore, the
Petitioner cannot challenge the order
passed by her superiors.

2. My Attention was brought to the
fact that the petitioner aggrieved by an
order dated 18.01.2002 whereby the
transfer order of the opposite party nos. 3
and 4 were cancelled, has filed writ
petition No. 4799/2002. The said writ
petition was finally disposed of with a
direction to the petitioner to approach the
Director of Education, who shall decide
the representation within a period of three
months. The director, in compliance of
the directions of this Court, considered
the matter and rejected the representation
by an order dated 23.05.2002 upholding
the cancellation of the transfer order.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner
has approached this Court.

3. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it is evident that the documents
furnished by the petitioner were also
taken into consideration while deciding
the matter. In fact the representation of
the petitioner has been decided by the
Director of Education in compliance of
the directions issued in writ petition No.
4799/2002
filed
by
the
petitioner
challenging the cancellation of transfer
order, therefore, it can be said that the
petitioner is aggrieved party because it is
his representation which has been decided
by impugned order dated 23.05.2002.
Accordingly, this petition filed by the
petitioner is maintainable.

4. Now, I proceed to decide the
matter on its merit. Learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the opposite
party Nos. 3 & 4 belong to male cadre of
teacher whereas, they were posted and
working in the Mahila Institution and the
Director of Education wrongly came to
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Smt. Sahina Praveen V. Director of Education and others
585
the conclusion that the opposite parties 3
and 4 belong to the Mahila Cadre. In
support, the petitioner has relied upon the
seniority list as contained in annexure
R.A.-2 to the Rejoinder affidavit of
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal, opposite party
no. 3. Annexure No. RA-2 is the service
book of opposite party No.4, Sri Girdhari
Lal
Chaubey.
It
has
been
further
contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the complaints made by the
petitioner
were
not
taken
into
consideration while deciding the matter
wherein apprehensions have been shown
to ill effect on the students due to the
presence of the opposite parties 3 & 4 in
the Institution. It has further been
informed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the opposite parties 3 & 4
were working in boys institution for quite
some time earlier before being posted in
the present Institution. Lastly, it has been
alleged that the transfer of opposite
parties 3 & 4 has been cancelled because
of the political reasons as alleged in
paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The
document contained in annexure No.1 to
the rejoinder affidavit is an extract of
seniority list of the L.T. Grade Teacher of
female cadre. The said complete list has
been placed before this court by Sri
Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate. From the
perusal of the said list, it is crystal clear
that the opposite party No. 3 belongs to
female cadre. Further, from the perusal of
annexure No. C.A.-8 to the counter
affidavit which is the list of L.T. Grade
Teacher of female cadre, it is clear that
the name of opposite party No. 4 figures
at Sl. No. 63. Accordingly, there is no
doubt even with regard to the status of
opposite party No. 4 for being in female
cadre.

5. In paragraph-12 of the writ
petition vague allegations have been
alleged by the petitioner against opposite
parties 3 & 4 that they belong to the
political party and they have some
political clout and they exercised political
pressure
on
the
Joint
Director
of
Education. Learned counsel for the
petitioner failed to appreciate that which
political party opposites parties 3 & 4
belongs to and how and in which manner
they have pressurized the Joint Director of
Education. Further, the Joint Director of
Education Mr. Avadhesh Chand is not
party to the writ petition. It may be further
recalled that the petitioner has already
challenged the other of cancellation in
writ petition No. 4799/2002 and after
considering the matter on merit, no
interference was shown by this Court.

6. I am of the considered opinion
that in backdrop of catena of judgements
of the apex court, cancellation of transfer
order can be interfered only on two
counts; firstly, violation of law, secondly
allegation of malafide. There is no
foundation in the writ petition with regard
to violation of law except the ground of
cadre, which has already been decided
herein above. As far as allegations of
malafides
are
concerned,
vague
allegations have been raised, which too
the
petitioner
counsel
failed
to
substantiate.

7. With regard to the apprehensions,
no writ can be issued on the basis of
apprehensions as alleged on behalf of the
petitioner.
Lastly,

the
allegation
regarding
non
consideration
of
the
complaints of the petitioner is concerned,
it appears that all the documents,
produced by the petitioner and the
opposite parties 3 & 4 were taken into
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
586
consideration. If the petitioner has any
other complaint, it would be open for him
to bring it into the knowledge of the
Director of the Education for redressal in
the public interest, particularly in the
interest of students.

8. In light of above, no interference
is warranted under Article-226 of the
Constitution of India.

9. The writ petitioner is dismissed.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 97 of 1987

Bal Mukund Prasad and others
 ...Revisionists
Versus
Mathura Prasad

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Tarun Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Srivastava

Code of Civil Procedure - Section 115 -
appeal filed without vakalatnama - court
below simply allowed 7 days time to
remove
the
irregularity
-
held
-
committed no illegalities - rather than
has done substantial justice instead of
denoy of technicalities..

Held - para 12 and 13

In my opinion the court below has
committed no irregularity. The court
should
not
decide
the
cases
on
technalites but decide the case on merits
and do substantial justice. I am fortified
by the judgement of the The Hon'ble
Supreme Courtin this regard in Re-AIR
1956
SC-140
Pratap
Singh
Vs.
Sri
Krishna Gupta.

In view of the above position of law this
revision has no force and it has been
filed on hyper technicality and requires
no interference by this Court under
Section
115
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure as the issue decided neither
affects the jurisdiction of the Court
below
nor
the
court
below
has
committed any material irregularity.
Case Law Discussed:
1994 AWR 217
1972 ALJ 9
AIR 1966 SC 1119
AIR 1956 SC 140 Relieded

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

2. This revision is directed against
the judgment and order dated 05.12.1986
passed by the Civil Judge-I, Gorakhpur in
suit no. 64 of 1985 Mathura Prasad Vs.
Smt. Rati Devi and others. By the
aforesaid judgment and order dated
05.12.1986 the Civil Judge-I, Gorakhpur
has decided issue no. 8 against the
defendant-revisionist.

3. The brief facts giving rise to this
revision are that initially the suit was filed
in the Court of Munsif. The valuation of
the suit was excessive; hence the plaint
was taken back for filing the same before
the Civil Judge. At the time of filing of
the suit defendant Mathura Prasad was
aged about 19 years and during the
pendency of the suit he has attained the
majority. In this regard an amendment
application was moved on 31st March,
1980. An objection was raised that after
attaining the majority the plaint should
not be signed by his guardian while