AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.02.2020, whereby he has been transferred from Govt. Upper
Primary Sanskrit School, Sagwara, Dungarpur to Govt. Senior Upadhyay Sanskrit School, Silthiya, Banswara.
Mr. Rishabh Tayal, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are total five Teachers working in Govt. Upper Primary Sanskrit School,
Sagwara, Dungarpur, as against the sanctioned posts of four.
It is also pointed out that out of these five Teachers, salary of Mr. Manoj Dixit is being drawn from Govt. Sanskrit School, Chikhali.
Learned counsel argued that if the respondents were to transfer surplus Teacher in light of direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court, said
Manoj Dixit ought to have been transferred, as he should have been treated as surplus, considering the fact that his salary is not being drawn from the
school in question and the same is being debited from the school at Chikhali.
Learned counsel argued that the petitioner is senior not only in age but also on the basis of date of appointment, hence, if someone was to be
transferred as surplus, it was Manoj Dixit.
Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the said Manoj Dixit had been working in this school since 2006,
whereas the petitioner has joined the school in question on 06.06.2012; thus, applying principle of LIFO (Last In First Out), the petitioner has been
treated surplus and was transferred.
It was also informed by Mr. Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General that since the petitioner has been relieved (on 17.02.2020), the writ petition
has been rendered infructuous.
Having considered the facts and submissions advanced by rival parties, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that in normal circumstances, Manoj
Dixit, whose salary was being drawn from the school of Chikhali should have been treated surplus. But no reasons have come on record as to why
and how his salary was drawn from the school at Chikhali.
This Court, however, does not find any error in the approach of the respondent in determining that which Teacher is to be treated surplus. They
have rightly applied LIFO principle â€" that is one who has joined last is the surplus Teacher.
In view of the above and considering the fact that the petitioner has since been relieved, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter, more
particularly because the petitioner has not impleaded the affected person â€" Manoj Dixit as party respondent.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
Needless to observe that in the process of reorganisation, if any other Teacher from Government Upper Primary School, Sagwara is required to
be shifted as surplus, the respondent will consider Manoj Dixit, whose salary is being charged from school at Chikhali to be a surplus Teacher.