Patel Yogitaben Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
Patel Yogitaben Amrutlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 23092, 23839, 23840, 23841, 23011, 23094, 21213, 22219, 22290, 22291, 22390, 22616, 22731 of 2022
Decided on : 24-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA, ADVOCATE, MR RONAK B. RAVAL, Adv

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Not passing any written order - Order of repatriation - Petitions are filed by respective teachers against action of respondent authorities of not passing any written order - Held, It is expected from State Government to come out with a concise and clear policy, which may not give rise to any ambiguity, so that teachers may not have to approach, at time when camps are to be organized - All aspects are required to be clarified in advance, so that teachers can know issues which they are facing or they have to face - Despite availability of an alternative remedy, in absence of such any orders, which would clarify stand of respondent authorities, teachers are constrained to file a writ petition before this Court - Hence, respondent authorities are directed to pass written orders and communicate reasons of rejection or non-acceptance of online application forms - Such orders may also incorporate availing of an alternative remedy of filing an appeal challenging such action before Committee - Forms, which are already filled-up by petitioners for category of such petitioners for intra-district transfer shall be accepted by concerned authorities, in case they are not accepted only for issue for which present writ petitions are filed - Petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raval, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent–State.

2. The present group of petitions are taken up for final hearing today since the issue involved in these petitions affects the administration of the State Government in the transfer policies of the teachers/Block Resource Centre (BRC)/Cluster Resource Centre (CRC)/Unit Reserve Coordinator (URC), who are serving in the State of Gujarat.

3. It is also noticed that all the writ petitions are filed by the respective teachers/BRC/CRC/URC against the action of the respondent authorities of not passing any written order. This Court is confronted with number of petitions, as and when the State is desirous of holding their camps for transfer of teachers in the State of Gujarat.

4. The petitions are filed on the last moment, since the teachers on the ground level are refused orally to participate in the camps meant for transfer on various reasons, such as seniority, fixation of their date of appointment in the respective parental school etc. The present writ petitions pertain to those teachers, who opted to go on deputation as BRC/CRC/URC. The writ petitions have their genesis in the Resolution/Policy dated 01.04.2022. The preamble of the policy dated 01.04.2022 reflects that prior to the issuance of that Resolution/Policy, the original policy of transfer has been altered 24 times by issuing various administrative instructions issued by the State Government regulating the transfer of the teachers in the State of Gujarat.

FACTS :

5. In the present case, the petitioners, who opted to go on deputation as BRC, CRC, URC are aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities by ignoring their seniority from the date of their posting in the mother school. The case of the petitioners is primarily premised on the interpretation of two Clauses of the Policy dated 01.04.2022, more particularly Chapter–H (Clause Nos.7 and 8). It is the case of the petitioners that after the order of repatriation, they are not appointed in their mother school and they are declared as surplus or even if they are appointed in their original schools, their seniority from the date of posting in the mother school is ignored, which acts as predicament in accepting their applications for intra-district transfer.

6. The intra-district camps are scheduled to be organized in the month of December. There are two classes of the petitioners, who opted to go on deputation as CRC, BRC and URC; (a) those who are opted to go on deputation twice and repatriated pursuant to the directions issued by the State Government, and (b) those petitioners, who on their own after tendering resignation as BRC, CRC/URC have been repatriated. So far as the Category-A of such teachers, who opted to go on deputation as BRC, CRC and URC, it is the case of the State Government that their cases will be governed by the paragraph No.7 of Chapter–H of the policy dated 01.04.2022 and for Category-B, their case would be governed as paragraph No.8 of Chapter-H of the policy dated 01.04.2022.

SUBMISSIONS :

7. Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that so far as the petitioners of the Category-A are concerned, those who have opted to go on deputation twice, are not repatriated on the original school and are declared surplus and their seniority of the mother school, in which they were initially appointed prior to their first deputation, is absolutely ignored and their seniority is counted from the date, when they opted to go on deputation again on the second occasion. He has submitted that the policy nowhere provides that in cases of the second deputation, when the BRC/CRC are repatriated, the seniority of their mother school, which was prevailing prior to their first deputation, is wiped out.

7.1 Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama, has also placed reliance on the judgment dated 28.09.2022 passed on Special Civil Application No.15272 of 2022, in support o