DR. B. S. CHANHAN, J.

The petitioner in the instant petition has challenged the transfer order dated 30-8-1995 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). The petitioner is a work-charge employee of the Ganga Pardushan Unit, U. P. Jal Nigam Deenapur, Varanasi and designated as Work Agent and gets a consolidated monthly salary, Petitioner was trans ferred from Varanasi to Azamgarh in the public interest as the staff at Varanasi had become surplus. Being aggrieved petitioner moved a representation (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) before respondent No. 1 on 10-8-1995 that his transfer order be recalled as the transfer in the mid academic session would adversely affect the education of his children. The respondents did not consider the said representation and thus said transfer order was challenged by the instant writ petition. This Court vide its order dated 22-11-1995 allowed the writ petition directing the respondent to dispose of the said representation by means of speaking order within a period of one month by issuing a further direction that the transfer order dated 20-8-1995 shall not be given effect to till 30-6-1996 as the reliance had been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education Madras v. O. Karuppa Thevan, 1994 (Supp) 2 SCC 666, in whfch the mid academic sessions transfer has been depricated.

2. Being aggrieved, respondents preferred Special Appeal against the Judgment and order dated 22-11- 1995, wherein the said judgment and order were set aside and direction was issued to decide the case afresh.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. As the case relates to transfer of an employee and affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of the counsels the petition is heard and disposed of finally. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said transfer order mainly of the following grounds :-

(a) Transfer order would affect the education of his children as the order has been passed in mid- academic session ;

(b) the petitioner being a Class IV employee could not have been transferred outside the District ;

(c) the work force in Varanasi was not surplus, as 12 other persons were working there on contract basis, who were Junior to petitioner ; and

(d) the transfer order was passed as the respondents were having malice against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents denied all the allegations. In the representation dated 10-8-1995 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), petitioner has mentioned that mid academic session transfer would adversely affect the education of his children, though there is no whisper regarding the ages and classes of the children, in which they were studying. Such a vague and unsatisfactory demand would and must not force the employer to consider the representation made by an employee. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O. Karuppa Thevan (supra), does not confer any right upon an employee but merely directs the employer to give "due weight" to the fact and consider as to whether the transfer in the mid- academic session can be avoided, if it was going to affect the education of the children. The Apex Court observed as under :-

"although, there is no rule, we are of the view that in affecting trans fer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent".

5. In the instant case petitioners representation, as stated above, does not disclose any particulars about the education of his children. In rejoinder-affidavit, filed before this Court first time on 7-1-1996, it has been disclosed that son of the petitioner was studying in 1st Standard and the daughter was admitted in Lower Kinder-Garden in 1995 (Annexure R-A-1 to the writ petition ).

6. No doubt, there is an awakening in the society to give best possible education to the children but again the question does arise as to whether this Court must exercise its extra-ordinary d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document