Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14196
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, Mr. Sandeep Shah, JJ
Smt. Gauri wife of Bhagwan Das – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 459/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha
For the Respondents: Mr. Ravindra Jhala
Transfer orders for teachers must align with their qualifications; enforcing teaching in unqualified subjects violates educational rights.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 - Rule 266 - Transfer of teacher - Appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III to teach Social Science - Appellant transferred to teach English despite not being qualified in English - Transfer order quashed on ground of being punitive and malice in law - Court emphasized the rights under Article 21-A for qualified teaching. (Paras 16-18)
(B) Education Law - Scope of interference in transfer orders - Transfer can be challenged only in cases of mala fides, jurisdictional issues, or if punitive in nature. (Paras 12; 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant filed the appeal against the dismissal of her writ petition challenging a transfer order that required her to teach a subject she was not qualified for, asserting that her appointment was only as a teacher in Social Science.
Findings of Court:
The order of transfer was quashed, asserting that teachers should not be forced to teach subjects for which they lack qualifications, thereby avoiding potential harm to students' education.
Issues: The main issues were whether the transfer was lawful given the appellant's qualifications and the implications of enforcing such a transfer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the transfer order punitive and not consistent with the appellant's qualifications, upholding educational rights.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant challenges dismissal of request to quash a transfer order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. appellant claims inappropriate subject assignment based on qualifications. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. dispute over teaching subject against qualifications outlined in guidelines. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court emphasizes strict adherence to qualifications for teaching roles. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. transfer order quashed based on lack of qualification support; appeal allowed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
Order
16/05/2025
( Per Hon’ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J )
The appellant has filed the present appeal being aggrieved against the judgment dated 4th February 2025, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2858 of 2025 (Smt. Gauri v. State & Anr.), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking prayer to quash the transfer order along with other prayers, has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the appellant came to be appointed on the post of Teacher Grade-III by way of order dated 27th March 2006, wherein the subject under which she was appointed as Teacher Grade-III was not specified. It has been asserted by the appellant that she had English as her compulsory subject during the Bachelor of Arts qualification acquired by her and to fortify the same, she has placed on record the relevant mark-sheets. The assertion is also to the extent that she had subjects such as History, Economics, etc. as her optional/elective subjects, and therefore, she was appointed essentially as a teacher to teach the subject of Social Science.
3. The appellant further asserted that, for the purpose of setting out details of the teachers, Shala Darshan Portal maintained by the Education Department, the Director of Primary Education, Bikaner issued guidelines dated 16th February 2016 and the table appended therewith specified that the persons with optional subject of the corresponding field shall be treated as teacher in that particular subject. The appellant lays emphasis on Column K at Serial No.6 of the table (Page 34 of paper book of writ petition) that since she had the subject of History etc., she was treated as teacher in Social Science. The appellant has further emphasized that by way of order dated 29th July 2019 while changing the staffing pattern, she was declared surplus and subjected to posting in Secondary Education Department while treating her to be a teacher in subject of English, whereas she was not appointed as a teacher in subject of English nor was teaching the subject in question.
4. The appellant submitted a representation emphasizing that she was teaching Social Science and therefore, her name in the order dated 29th July 2019 was wrongly placed. The appellant subsequently approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12543 of 2019 (Smt. Gauri v. State of Rajasthan) wherein, initially, while considering the submissions made by the appellant, an interim order was passed by this Court vide order dated 22nd August 2019. Subsequently, the writ petition was disposed of on 7th May 2024 and while considering the duration of the interim protection granted by this Court, the same was made absolute. However, liberty was granted to the respondent to pass fresh order in future, if necessary, due to administrative exigencies. It was further specified that the granting of liberty above-mentioned should not be construed as a direction of the Court to necessarily pass fresh order of transfer, in case there is no such requirement.
5. Pursuant to the order above-mentioned, the respondent, however, passed the order dated 9th January 2025 whereby, again appellant was transferred from Upper Primary School Sardarsinghpur, Naggi to Government Senior Secondary School, 6FA Radewala, Srikaranpur on the post of Teacher Level-II in the subject of English. Being aggrieved against the same, the above- mentioned writ petition was filed by the appellant while asserting that even as per the advertisement
