Inter-District Transfer Can't Be Claimed As Matter Of Right By Govt Servant : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has refused to transfer an Uttar Pradesh-based government teacher to her in-law's place, holding that an inter-district transfer could not be claimed as a matter of right on a mere displacement from a family.

“This is a universal problem faced by employees and one cannot, on the mere displacement from the family, claim an inter-district transfer, which in the present case also entails a cadre change; as a matter of right.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the contempt proceedings against the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, initiated by the Respondent-teacher for defying the High Court's judgment which had directed the Board to consider the claim of the respondent for inter-district transfer from Bahraich District to Lucknow in terms of the Rule 8(2)(d) of the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 (“Rules”), which provides relaxations to female teachers.

The appellant-contemnor opposed the contempt proceedings by relying on the Rules, contending that the respondent was not eligible for inter-district transfer as she had secured marks below the prescribed minimum cut-off. It was further argued that permitting her transfer would leave the concerned school short of teachers, thereby violating the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which prescribes a specific student-teacher ratio to be maintained in every school under its Schedule.

Finding force in the appellant's submission, the Court said that Rule 8(2)(d) is only a relaxation insofar as women employees are concerned, which cannot, however, result in jeopardizing the studies of the students.

According to the Court, transfer cannot be claimed as a matter of right where it would result in a shortage of teachers. The Court stressed that education is not for advancing the career of the teachers or to enable convenient postings.

“Every teacher should remember that the educational system is primarily for the students and not to further the career of the teachers or to enable convenient postings to the teachers.”, the Court said.

As a result, the appeal was allowed; the impugned judgment finding the appellant to be prima facie guilty of contempt was set aside.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Ankit Goel- 2442, AOR Mr. Varun Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shashank Singh- 3052, AOR Ms. Prapti Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Amritya Sen, Adv. Ms. Sweety Gautam, Adv.