Dharmender Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral)

By means of this petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th July, 2011 whereby he has been transferred from DIET Kangra at Dharamshala to Govt. Senior Secondary School, Virgarh, District Shimla.

The Petitioner is a lecturer in Physics. He as per his averments was initially appointed as lecturer in Computers in DIET Kangra at Dharamshala on 18.9.2003. He continued to work as such till the year 2007. He was thereafter sent for undergoing a foundation course in disability from MP Bhoj Open University. The Petitioner was adjusted as lecturer in Fine Arts in DIET Kangra at Dharamshala even though he has no qualification in Fine Arts and continued working at Dharamshala and was also given the charge of exclusive education. He has now been transferred and has challenged the transfer on the grounds that since he is covered by Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan he cannot be transferred for a period of 10 years in view of the judgement delivered by this Court in CWP No. 885 of 2006 and other connected matters on August 27, 2007. The second ground is that the wife of the Petitioner has undergone a kidney transplant and in fact the Petitioner has donated his kidney to his wife and thirdly his daughter is in class 10+2 and therefore, he may be adjusted in or around Dharamshala.

As far as the first contention is concerned, in my view, the judgement relied upon by the Petitioner is not at all applicable to this case. That judgement was delivered in respect of Block Resource Centre Coordinators who were appointed after a detailed process of inviting applications and selected by the concerned Selection Committees. The scheme itself provided that the Block Resource Centre Coordinators (BRCC) so selected should have at least 10 years of service for retirement to maintain continuity and ensure that the same person could be available for the entire project period. Similar was the condition in the letters which followed. It was in this context that this Court held that normally BRCC should not be transferred for a period of 10 years and the said judgement was given only in the context of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, which relate to school drop outs between the age group of 6 to 14.

The Petitioner, on the other hand, is a lecturer teaching 10+2 class and is not expected to teach children at the primary level or those who are below of 14 years of age. The Petitioner has remained at Dharamshala. The Petitioner even earlier was transferred to Ray but on the ground of illness of his wife was adjusted again at Dharamshala. He has been at Dharamshala for almost 8 years and he has been transferred to Virgarh, which is no doubt a remote area. However, what is the fault of the children and students studying at Virgarh? Why should they be deprived of getting proper education? They are also citizens of this country and merely because they reside in remote areas does not mean that they should not get fully qualified teachers. In fact in urban areas private education discharges a large portion of the function of the State, whereas in the rural and remote areas the only avenue of education available to the children is the schools run by the Government. If every teacher starts making an excuse and starts claiming that he should not be posted in a remote area on one pretext or the other then these children who are already disadvantaged because they are living in remote areas will be further disadvantaged due to the fact that they will not get proper education.

Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner cannot claim that he should remain at Dharamshala itself. The petition is, therefore, rejected. It is, however, made clear that in case the Petitioner makes any representation to the State to adjust him at some other place the same shall be considered and decided in accordance with law only after the Petitioner joins at Virgarh. In case the Petitioner does not join at Virgarh no such representation shall be entertained.

No costs.