SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Ori) 410

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
L. Rath, K.C. Jagadeb Roy, JJ.
AKSHAYA KUMAR BEURA - APPELLANT
Versus
DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 501 of 1991
Decided On : 29-03-1991

Advocates Appeared:
G.N. Mohapatra, for the Appellant; S.K. Das, Additional Government Advocate for Opp. party Nos. 1 and 3, Bijan Roy, for Opp. party No. 2 and C.V. Murty, for Opp. party No. 4, for the Respondent

All persons appointed to aided colleges as lecturers in the regular manner are borne in the common cadre and hence liable to be transferred.

Headnote:

TRANSFER OF LECTURER - COMMON CADRE - CONSTITUTION - OPTION - DEEMED ENCADREMENT - MALA FIDE TRANSFER - TRANSFER DURING ACADEMIC SESSION - HUSBAND AND WIFE POSTING - GRANT-IN-AID - PAYMENT OF SALARY - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL : [LECTURER TRANSFER] - [COMMON CADRE] - [OPTION] - [DEEMED ENCADREMENT] - [MALA FIDE TRANSFER] - [TRANSFER DURING ACADEMIC SESSION] - [HUSBAND AND WIFE POSTING] - [GRANT-IN-AID] - [PAYMENT OF SALARY] - [WRIT PETITION] - [DISMISSAL]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a lecturer in Ekamra Mahavidyalaya, Bhubaneswar, challenged his transfer to Jashipur College, Mayurbhanj, on the grounds that he was not a person liable to be transferred as he was not borne in the common cadre of lecturers relating to the aided colleges, that the transfer was mala fide, that it was effected in the middle of the academic session, and that his wife was serving in the Central School, Bhubaneswar, and the Government's direction was that husband and wife should be posted together.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was a member of the common cadre of lecturers and hence liable to be transferred; that the transfer was not mala fide; that the transfer during the academic session was justified in the exigencies of service; and that the petitioner's submission that his transfer should not be given effect to in view of his wife's posting in Bhubaneswar was without force.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was a person liable to be transferred as he was not borne in the common cadre of lecturers relating to the aided colleges? 2. Whether the transfer was mala fide? 3. Whether the transfer was effected in the middle of the academic session? 4. Whether the petitioner's wife was serving in the Central School, Bhubaneswar, and the Government's direction was that husband and wife should be posted together?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was a member of the common cadre of lecturers and hence liable to be transferred. It interpreted Section 10-C of the Orissa Education Act and the Orissa Aided Educational Institutions Employees' Common Cadre and Intertransferability Rules, 1979, and concluded that all persons appointed to aided colleges as lecturers in the regular manner are borne in the common cadre. 2. The court held that the transfer was not mala fide. It found that the petitioner had been continuing in the Ekamra Mahavidyalaya since 1984 and that the opposite party No. 4 had been posted in Jashipur College on 27-10-1990, while the impugned transfer was effected on 14-12-1990. The court held that these facts alone were not sufficient to establish mala fide. 3. The court held that the transfer during the academic session was justified in the exigencies of service. It noted that the opposite party No. 4 had already joined the college in place of the petitioner and that the petitioner would not suffer any prejudice as his wife was a teacher in the Central School and the education of their children would not be affected. 4. The court held that the petitioner's submission that his transfer should not be given effect to in view of his wife's posting in Bhubaneswar was without force. It held that the principle that husband and wife should be posted together did not have a universal application, particularly when they were not employees under the same master.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

L. Rath, J. - The petitioner, a lecturer in Ekamra Mahavidyalaya, Bhubaneswar, having been transferred to Jashipur College in the district of Mayurbhanj, has moved this Court assailing the order of transfer. The. facts are that on the passing of the order of transfer on 14-12-1990 the petitioner filed O. J. C. No. 5039 of 1990 for quashing the order mainly on the ground that he was a person not liable to be transferred since he was not borne in the common cadre of lecturers relating to the aided colleges. The case was disposed of on 20-12-1990 permitting the petitioner to file a representation before the appropriate authority within two weeks from the date of order whereafter the representation was to be disposed of within two weeks. The representation in question was made by the petitioner to the opp, party Mo. 1 on 31-12-1990 who communicated his decision refusing the same on 11-1-1991, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-4, saying that since the petitioner was entitled to full salary cost from the date of his- Joining the new college, he is deemed to have come to the common cadre and that formal encadrement and notificatfon takes an enormously long. time it was further stated that pending, such notification, marry other persons have been extended the benefit of common cadre and accordingly the petitioner has been transferred and could have no ground for complaint. Mr. G. N. Mohapatra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,. has urged, in questioning the transfer, the following submissions ;

(1) That the petitioner is not a person belonging to the common cadre of lecturers and hence is not lible to be transferred out of his own college of appointment ;

(2) That the transfer is mala fide in nature since the opp. party No. 4 who has been transferred in his place to Ekamra College had been transferred to Jashipur College on transfer only 45 days back ;

(3) That the transfer has been directed in the middle of the academic session contrary to the Government's guidelines for the same and that his children who are studying in the Central School, Bhubaneswar and are to appear in examinations would suffer; and

(4) Since the petitioner's wife is serving in the Central School as a teacher at Bhubaneswar and the Government's direction is that husband and wife are to be posted together, the transfer ought not to have been directed.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 3, the Director, Higher Education and the Government of Orissa ; by the opp. party No. 2, the Principal, Ekamra Mahavidyalaya; and by the opp. party No. 4, the lecturer who has been transferred in place of the petitioner. So far as the counter affidavit of the Director and the Government is concerned, it is contended therein that the petitioner is a member of the common-cadre of lecturers which has already been constituted and hence his transfer is legal. It is further stated that the petitioner has been continuing in the Ekamra Mahavidyalaya since 1984 and hence his transfer cannot be called unjustified.

2. As regards the first submission, it is urged by Mr. Mohapatra that Section 10-C of the Orissa Education Act which makes the provision for constitution of the common cadre, stipulates that before a person is grafted to a cadre his option has to be asked for whether he intends to be absorbed there and since the petitioner has not been afforded any such opportunity to state his opinion, he cannot be said to be borne in the cadre. In support of submission reliance is also placed on the very impugned order of the Director in Annexure-4 wherein the petitioner was communicated that formal encadrement and notification takes an enormously long time and that the petitioner shall be deemed to have come into the common cadre. It is Mr. Mohapatra's submission that there is no provision in the Orissa Education Act providing for a deemed encadrement and that the fact that the- petitioner is not encadred would itself appear from the le





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top