Back
1995 Supreme(All) 1155
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.M.Lal, R.K.Mahajan
DEEPA VASHISTHA
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 22 November 1995
Civil Misc. W. P. No. 31810 of 1995
Prakash Padia, R.G.PADIA,
Government guidelines for posting spouses at the same station, though not mandatory, should be considered positively by the administration and adhered to until they are changed or amended.
Headnote:
TRANSFER OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - SPOUSES POSTING AT SAME STATION - GUIDELINES - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION - COURT'S DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER TRANSFER ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Lecturer in Vocal Music, challenged her transfer from Rampur to Ranikhet, arguing that it violated government guidelines for posting spouses at the same station. The transfer order was initially stayed by the court, and the petitioner was directed to submit a representation to the Director of Higher Education.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government guidelines for posting spouses at the same station, though not mandatory, should be considered positively by the administration. The court found that the transfer order was not in consonance with the earlier order passed by the court, and directed the authority concerned to reconsider the order in light of the guidelines and decide the petitioner's representation afresh within 15 days.
Issues: 1. Whether the government guidelines for posting spouses at the same station are mandatory or merely directory. 2. Whether the transfer order violated the government guidelines and the court's earlier order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the government guidelines for posting spouses at the same station, though not in imperative form, should be interpreted positively and adhered to by the administration until they are changed or amended. 2. The court found that the transfer order was not in consonance with the earlier order passed by the court, which had directed the authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation in light of the guidelines.
Final Decision: The court directed the authority concerned to reconsider the transfer order in light of the guidelines and decide the petitioner's representation afresh within 15 days.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner-Salt. Deepa Vashistha challenges an order dated 26-9-1995, passed by the Director, Higher Education, U. P. , Allahabad (respondent No. 2) contained in Annexure 28 to this petition.
2. By the order impugned, while rejecting petitioners representations dated 6-8-1995, 25-8-1995 and 28-8-1995, she is directed to join at Ranikhet, district Almora where she has been transferred vide order dated 4-6-1994 (Annexure 2 ).
3. For brevity of the case, few facts which are necessary to be stated for the purpose of this case, are thus :
4. Petitioner Smt. Deepa Vashistha, is a Lecturer (Vocal Music) pre sently posted at Government Post Graduate Degree College, Rampur,
5. Petitioners husband-Dr. S. C. Vashistha is also in Government service and presently posted at Project Officer, Non-Formal Education, at Rampur. Thus, husband wife both are at Rampur.
6. The order dated 4-6-1994 transferring the petitioner from Rampur to Ranikhet referred to above, was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 674 of 1994 before Lucknow Bench of this Court, and that petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 1-7-1994 (Annexure 5) whereby the respon dents were directed to decide petitioners representation and in the meantime not to compel her to join at Ranikhet.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners representation was disposed of, but the same did not find favour by order dated 22-7-1995 (Annexure 7 ).
8. Thereafter, successive representations were made, but of no avail.
9. Therefore, the petitioner filed second petition being Writ Petition No. 22620 of 1995 before this Court against the said transfer order dated 4-7-1994 as well as the order dated 22-7-1994 rejecting the representation.
10. This Court presided over by Honble Mr. Justice Paritosh K. Mukherjee and Honble Mr. Justice Shitla Pd. Srivastava vide order dated 21-8-1995 directed the respondents to decide petitioners
representation within two months and further directed that till disposal of the representation the transfer order shall not be given effect to.
11. The order of this Court dated 21-8-1995 is reproduced herein below in verbatim :-
"by means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of transfer, dated 22-7-1994, set out at Annexure 7 to the writ petition.
Against the said order, the petitioner has filed two representations dated 30-8-1994 and 10-4-1995 (Annexures 8 and 13 to the writ petition) which are pending before (Higher Education), Directorate of Higher Education, Allahabad respondent No. 2.
Annexure-14 is a communicate dated 17-5-1995 which has been sent to respondent No. 2 by the Chancellor of the Universities i. e, Governor of the State. The relevant portion of the said com munication is quoted :
"nirdeshanusar amodh hai ki Kripya Smt. Deepa Vashistha ke sthanantran ko nirast kar ki gayi karwahi se kulpati mahodaya ke suchanarth mujhe avgat karane ka kast Karen. Yadi is sambandh men koi kathinai ho to use avgat karey koanki yeh prakaran kafi samai aapke vibhag me Iambi thai or kai baar patra likhne ke baad bhi koi karwahi nahin ki gayi hai. Yadi aap Lucknow aa rahen hon to kripya vaktigat roop se maha-mahitn se milkar unhen sthit se avgat kara den. "
Thus, it will appear from the aforesaid observations of the Chancellor of the Universities that a direction was issued to the respondent to give suitable posting at the same place to both the petitioner and her husband, but he did not comply the said direction.
That being the factual position, we direct that aforesaid representations filed by the petitioner shall be decided by respondent No. 2 within two months from the date of production of a certified copy before him in the light of the directions issued by the Chancellor of the Universities and relevant Government Orders operating in the field.
In the meantime, the impugned order dated 22-7-1994 shall not be given effect to until the representations of the petition
