Govt Servant Cannot Claim Inter-District Transfer As Right; Education System Is For Students, Not Teachers' Convenience: Supreme Court

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran held so while setting aside an Allahabad High Court order that had prima facie found contempt in the rejection of a female teacher's inter-district transfer request, observing that it there was no contempt in the order rejecting her request, and that the reasons for rejection were fully justified.

The plea before the Supreme Court was filed by the Secretary, Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, against an order of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in a contempt case. The High Court had prima facie found disobedience of its 2023 judgment in which the respondent (teacher) was the appellant. The High Court had passed directions to consider the respondent's claim in terms of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.

The bench examined the rejection order and found that it did refer to Rule 8(2)(d) of the 2008 Rules. For context, the rule provides that applications for inter-state transfer are not entertained for five years. In special circumstances, applications of female teachers are considered for inter-district transfer to the district of their husband's residence or in-law's place.

The Court noted that the High Court found that although the rule was quoted in the rejection order, the order did not consider its impact, which led to the contempt notice.

The bench observed that the rejection order also records that a teacher has her cadre in the local area, and that transfer changes the cadre. It records that no one can seek transfer as of right, especially as the teacher voluntarily chose her cadre at the time of appointment.

“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 bench observed.

The bench also took note that the respondent scored 12 marks, while the minimum cut-off for inter-district transfer out of Bahraich is 22. It also noted that the student strength is 137 in the school where she is posted, but only two teachers work in the primary section. Moreover, under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the school requires five teachers, and transferring one of the two would disrupt the studies of the students. Noting so, the bench held, “we are of the opinion that the reasons rejecting the transfer are fully justified.”

The teacher had pleaded that she lives alone in Bahraich with her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, while her in-laws and her husband, who is the only son of his parents, are in Lucknow.

On this, the Court held as follows:

“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. Rule 8(2)(d) is only a relaxation insofar as woman employees are concerned, which cannot, however, result in jeopardizing the studies of the students.”

Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court's order was set aside.

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG; Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR; Mr. Chandrakant Sahoo, Adv.; Mr. Harshit Singhal, Adv.; Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.

For Respondent: Mr Shashank Singh, AOR