Manoj Kumar and another v. State of UP and others)

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by   Shri   Siddharth   Khare,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the Appellants, Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Sri Tej   Bhanu   Pandey,   learned   Standing   Counsel   for   the   State­ Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 .

2. The   instant   appeal   is   listed   alongwith   Special   Appeal No.998 of 2024 (Manoj Kumar and another Vs. State of UP and others);   however,   since   the   appeals   have   been   argued independently, the same are being decided by separate orders.

3. The   present   intra­court   appeal   is   directed   against   the judgment   and   order   dated   05.01.2024,   passed   by   a   learned Single   Judge,   in   Writ–A   No.20779   of   2023   [Naveen   Kamal Srivastava And 2 Others Vs. State Of U.P. and Others], praying 2 for modification of the judgment and order and to allow the writ petition  in  toto  with  a  further  prayer  for  a  direction   that  the petitioner­appellants   would   be   entitled   to   avail   all   benefits flowing from sanction orders dated 26.06.2023 sanctioning their transfers.

4. The records of the case before us indicates that the writ petition  had  been   filed  praying   for   quashing  of   notices  dated

23.09.2023   issued   by   the   District   Basic   Education   Officer, Jhansi, and the subsequent orders dated 29.11.2023 directing relieving   of   all   the   petitioners­appellants   from   District   Jhansi with direction to report back to the original district Chitrakoot. The petitioners had also sought quashing of the Circular Letter dated   28.06.2023   issued   by   the   Secretary,   Board   of   Basic Education,   U.P.   Prayagraj,   and   a   further   direction   to   the respondents not to interfere in their functioning as teachers in District Jhansi and to pay their regular salary including arrears from July 2023.

5. The   writ   petition   was   finally   disposed   of   with   certain observations/directions in terms of an order dated 05.01.2024, which is being reproduced below: “Order on Amendment Application No. 02 of 2023.

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. The amendment application is allowed. Order on Writ Petition. Learned   senior   counsel   fairly   submits   that   on   the   issue   of clause 5 of a circular issued by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad in pursuance of the transfer policy 2023­2024, this Court has reserved a judgement. 3 Learned   senior   counsel   further   submits   that   in   peculiar circumstances   of   the   present   case   that   in   pursuance   of transfer orders passed  by the respondents, petitioners were relieved from district Chitrakoot, and submitted their joining before   the   Basic   Shiksha   Adhikari,   Jhansi,   respectively   on 03.07.2023, 07.07.2023 and later on they were allotted their respective   institutions   and   they   have   joined   their   also   on 14.09.2023, 15.09.2023 respectively. Learned senior counsel further submits that subsequently by the   independent   impugned   order   dated   29.11.2023 petitioners' transfer order was set aside which was brought on record by way of an amendment application and challenged, and   they   were   directed   to   report   to   their   original   district Chitrakoot. Learned   senior   counsel   submits   that   at   mid   session   of   the present   educational   year,   impugned   orders   will   adversely affect studies of students and prayed that it may be set aside and   at  least  kept   in   abeyance  till  end   of   present   academic session   so   that   they   may   file   a   fresh   application   for   their interstate transfer if situation so warrant. Ms.   Archana   Singh,   learned   counsel   for   respondents   has opposed the aforesaid prayer, however, she has not disputed that normally no transfer is allowed in mid session. In the aforesaid circumstances, without going into the merits of the case in regard to the effect of clause 5 of a circular issued   by   the   Board,   I   find   merit   in   argument   of   learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it would be adverse to the interest of students to allow petitioners to relieve from their transferred place in mid session in this regard reliance placed of clause 18 of the transfer policy dated 02.06.2023 is also taken note of. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 29.11.2023 are kept in abeyance   till   end   of   present   educational   session   and   the petitioners will be at liberty to file a fresh application in terms of prevailing transfer policy for next academic session if so advice. This   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   with   aforesaid observation/directions.”

6. The   principal   ground   which   is   sought   to   be   taken   in support   of   the   appeal   is   that   by   submitting   that   the   orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer, in terms of which the petitioners were relieved for rejoining their original place of posting   at   District   Chitrakoot,   having   been   challenged   by 4 amending the writ petition, there existed no justification for the aforesaid   controversy   not   to   be   adjudicated   on   merits   by   the learned   Single   Judge   while   deciding   the   writ   petition.   The orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer relieving the petitioners are being sought to be challenged by asserting that the said orders are based upon a Circular dated 28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, Board of Education, and therefore there was no justification for passing the said orders on the basis of conditions which were not part of the order passed by the State Government.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and also   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   Board   of   Education   have pointed   out   that   Clause   5   of   the   Circular   dated   28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board which forms the   basis   of   the   orders   which   were   impugned   in   the   writ petition,   were   subject   matter   of   challenge   in   a   batch   of   writ petitions, leading being Writ – A No. ­ 15163 of 2023 [Shraddha Yadav and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others], which had been heard at length, and the Court had reserved its judgment.

8. It is pointed out   that  before   the   writ  court,  the  learned Senior Counsel after making a fair submission in this regard had submitted   that   in   the   mid­session   of   the   current   academic session the impugned orders would adversely affect the studies of   the   students   and   accordingly   made   a   prayer   that   the impugned   orders   by   means   of   which   the   petitioners'   transfer orders had been set aside, and they were directed to join their original   place   of   posting,   be   set   aside   or   at   least   be   kept   in abeyance till the end of the current academic session. 5

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge without going into the merits of the case in regard to the effect of Clause­5 of the Circular issued by the Basic Education Board held that there was merit in the argument of the petitioners and it would be adverse to the interest of the students to allow the petitioners' transfer from their present place of posting in the mid   session.   In   this   regard,   Clause­18   of   the   transfer   policy dated 02.06.2023 was also taken note of. Accordingly, the writ petition   was   disposed   of   with   a   direction   that   the   impugned orders dated 29.11.2023 be kept in abeyance till the end of the current academic session and the petitioners were set at liberty to   file   fresh   applications   in   terms   of   the   prevailing   transfer policy for the next academic session, if so advised.

10. Counsel for the appellant has sought to advert to certain grounds   taken   in   the   memo   of   appeal   to   contend   that   the transfer   policy   of   the   teachers   for   the   year   2023­2024   was determined   as   per   the   Government   Order   dated   02.06.2023, and   the   orders   dated   29.11.2023   issued   by   the   District   Basic Education Officer, Jhansi, which were based on a Circular Letter dated 28.06.2023, cannot be legally supported. It was sought to be   argued   that   there   was   no   justification   for   passing   of   the orders impugned on the basis of conditions which were not part of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023.

11. Counsel appearing for  the State respondents as also the counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have controverted the aforesaid submissions by pointing out that the aforesaid grounds which are sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants were neither raised nor pressed before the learned Single Judge 6 and as such the appellants cannot support the appeal by raising the said grounds at this stage.

12. It is pointed out that a bare reading of the order under appeal  would   indicate   that   the  learned   counsel   appearing  for the petitioners before the writ court had fairly submitted that on the   issue   of   validity   of   Clause­5   of   the   circular   issued   by   the Secretary,   Basic   Shiksha   Parishad,   the   Court   had   already reserved   its   judgment.   It   was   in   the   said   backdrop   that   the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge had made a submission   that   the   impugned   orders   dated   29.11.2023,   in terms of which the transfer orders of the petitioners had been cancelled would adversely affect the studies of the students, and a prayer was made that the said orders may be set aside or at least   kept   in   abeyance   till   the   end   of   the   current   academic session. It is submitted that the grounds which are now sought to be urged in the present appeal, have been duly examined in the batch of writ petitions, leading petition being Writ – A No. ­ 15163 of 2023 [Shraddha Yadav And 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 10 Others], which were subsequently decided in terms of the judgment dated 09.01.2024, and similar contentions which were raised were repelled.

13. The question as to whether the points allegedly raised but not   dealt   with   in   the   judgment   impugned   can   be   pressed   in support   of   an   appeal   thereagainst,   was   adverted   to   in   the decision   of  Mohd.   Akram   Ansari   Vs.   Chief   Election   Officer and others1, and it was held that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed 1 (2008) 2 SCC 95 7 before him and that a party who has grievance must approach the   same   court   which   passed   the   judgment   and   to   urge   that other   points   were   pressed   but   not   dealt   with.   The   relevant observations   made   in   the   judgment,   in   this   regard,   are   as follows:­ “14.   In   this   connection   we   would   like   to   say   that   there   is   a presumption   in  law   that   a  Judge  deals   with   all   the   points   which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that   the   appellant   gave   up   the   other   points,   otherwise   he   would have   dealt   with   them   also.   If   a   point   is   not   mentioned   in   the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment,   it   is   open   to   the   concerned   Court   to   pass   appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The  party who  has this grievance  must approach the same  Court which   passed   the   judgment,   and  urge  that  the  other  points  were pressed but not dealt with.

15. Since no other point except the point of office of profit has been dealt   with   in   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   the presumption   is   that   no   other   point   was   pressed   before   the   High Court,   even   though   the   point   may   have   been   contained   in   the election petition. Hence we do not allow these points to be raised here.”

14. Taking similar view in a case where several points were raised in the application but arguments were confined to, and therefore decision was given by the Tribunal on only one point, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. N.V. Phaneendran2,  held that the appellants were not entitled to seek  opportunity to agitate the  remaining  questions  before the Tribunal. It was observed as follows:­ 8 “4. It is next contended that though several contentions have been raised on merits, the Tribunal had only dealt with on this issue and, therefore, an opportunity may be given to the respondent to agitate those questions by remitting the matter to the Tribunal. We find it difficult   to   accept   this   contention.   It   is   true   that   though   several points appear to have been raised, but before the Tribunal the only contention argued for the respondent was as extracted in paragraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal. It says: "The   only   point   that   was   urged   before   us   by   the   learned counsel   appearing   for   the   applicant   is   that   the   Divisional Railway Manager not being the appointing authority is not competent to impose a punishment of removal from service on the applicant who is a Travelling Ticker Examiner in the pay scale of Rs.425­640." Since   the   controversy   was   only   limited   to   this   point   before   the Tribunal, we do not find any justification to remit the matter.”

15. In the present case, the grounds which are sought to be urged in support of the appeal, may have been stated in the writ petition, but the judgment impugned does not indicate that any such ground was pressed. It is not the case of the appellants that the aforesaid grounds which are now sought to be taken in the appeal   were   argued   before   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the same have not been accorded consideration.

16. It   is   commonly   observed   that   in   the   memorandum   of petition or appeal, several points may be taken but at the time of arguments only some of those points may be pressed. In such a situation the court concerned would deal only with the points which are argued and there would be a presumption that the party   concerned   gave   up   the   challenges   based   on   the   other points. There is general presumption in law that a Judge deals 2 (1995) 6 SCC 45 9 with all the points which have been argued before him, and in case   the   party   seeks   to   contend   that   he   had   pressed   certain points which have not been considered, it would be open to him to   file   an   application   before   the   same   learned   Judge   which delivered the judgment, and seek an order of review. It would ordinarily be not open to the party concerned to argue a point in appeal,   which   even   if   taken   in   the   petition   before   the   court below, was neither argued nor pressed before the court of first instance.

17. In an  intra  Court  appeal,  the appellate  court  would not normally reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court of first instance, if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material available. This would be more so in a case where the grounds   which   are   sought   to   be   urged   were   never   pressed before the court of first instance.

18. The judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly records that   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   had submitted that Clause­5 of the circular dated 28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, which forms basis of the   orders  which were   impugned in  the   writ  petition,  was subject matter of challenge in a batch of writ petitions, wherein the   Court   had   reserved   its   judgment.   It   was   in   the   said background that the learned counsel submitted before the writ Court   that   in   the   midst   of   the   current   academic   session,   the impugned   orders   would   adversely   affect   the   studies   of   the students and accordingly prayed that the same may be set side or at least kept in abeyance till the end of the academic session. 10 Finding   merit   in   the   aforesaid   argument   that   it   would   be adverse to the interest of the students to allow the petitioners to be relieved from their transferred place in the mid­session, the learned   Single   Judge   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   with   a direction that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 be kept in abeyance   till   the   end   of   the   current   academic   session.   The judgment under appeal does not indicate that any other ground was urged before the learned Single Judge, and therefore we are of the view that it would not be open to the appellants to press any other ground which had not been argued before the learned Single Judge.

19. Even otherwise, the grounds which are now sought to be urged   in   support   of   the   present   appeal   have   been   duly considered in the batch of writ petitions with leading petition being Writ­A No.15163 of 2023 (Shraddha Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others)  which were decided in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2024 and similar contentions which had been   raised,   were   repelled.   The   observations   made   in   the judgment in the case of Shraddha Yadav (supra), in this regard, are as follows:­ िनयम २१ मे यािचकाकतारगण की सेवाये "१३. ' िजसके की अनुमित नही देता है और सथानानतरण, अनुमोदन के िबना नही हो सकता है। िनयमावली १९८१ के परावधानो के अधीन है। ’ सथानानतरण का परावधान है जो सामानयतः सथानानतरण ’ पिरषद के यिद होता है तो वो, '

१४. पूवर मे उललेिखत िनणरयों से यह भी िनिवरवािदत है िक सथानानतरण नीित मात एक परशासिनक नीित है, िजसकी पृषठभूिम मे कोई वैधािनक परावधान नहीं है। िकसी भी कमरचारी को अपनी पसंद के सथान पर सथानानतरण का दावा करने का कोई मौिलक या िनिहत अिधकार परापत नही होता है। िशककों व िशिककाओं के वषर २०२३-

१५. २०२४ की अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण नीित को उतर परदेश शासन के शासनादेश िदनाँक ०२, जून, िनधारिरत की गई। इसके खणड १६, १७ व १८ पूवर मे ' उललेिखत िकये जा चुके है, िनधाररण का दाियतव सौपा गया और उसी कम मे, तकनीकी चरण एवं परिकया के के अनुसार पिरषद को इस सथानानतरण नीित के २०२३ दारा 11 २०२३ को २०२३ व २८.०६. सरकारी सेवा का लाभ, और सथानानतरण नीित के कम मे अगरतर कायरवाही हेतु सिचव, उ.पर. बेिसक िशका पिरषद ने पिरपत िदनांक १६.०६. िनगरत िकया, िजसके अनुसार ऑनलाइन आवेदन के सतयापन व परीकण की परिकया को िनधारिरत िकया। इन पिरपतों के माधयम से एकल अिभभावक, िदवयांगता, असाधय या गंभीर रोग, िवषय मे परावधान बनाये गये। इसी कम मे पिरपत िदनांक २८.०६. २०२३ दारा अनतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण परिकया के अनतगरत सथानानतिरत िशकक एवं िशिकका को कायरमुकत िकये जाने की कायरवाही की, (१६, िवसतृत परिकया को भी िनधारिरत िकया। इसी पिरपत के खणड (५) को िनरसत करने की पराथरना यािचकाकतारगण ने की है। उकत खणड पुनः िनमन उललेिखत िकया जा रहा हैः- १६४ िशकक एवं िसथित आिद के िनलमबन की िशिकका) परोननित पद पर कायररत िशकक एवं िशिकका के सथानानतिरत जनपद मौिलक िनयुिकत ितिथ के आधार पर कायरमुकत "५. मे बैच की पदोननित वषर/ करने की कायरवाही की जायेगी।" ' सथानानतरण नीित के खणड १६, जो उकत नीित के इसकी समय सािरणी व कायरमुकत कराने के समबनध मे है, १७ व १८ के अनतवरसतु से सपषट है, जो १६. पिरषद के उकत पिरपतों को, तकनीकी चरण व परिकया के िनधाररण , ’ िनगरत करने िलए सपषट रप से पिरषद के सिचव को अिधकृ त करते है। अतः उकत के पिरपतों को िनगरत करने का अिधकार सिचव, उ.पर. बेिसक िशका पिरषद को पूणर रप से था। अतः पिरपत वैधािनक है व िविधक रप से संधारणीय भी है। यह न िक उसकी पिरपत सथानानतरण नीित के कम मे उसके कायरवाहन के परकृ ित के िलए सथानानतरण नीित के खणड १६, १७ व १८ पुनः िनमन उललेिखत िकये जा रहे हैः- िवरोध मे िनगरत िकये गये है। सपषटता व संदभर के िलए है, अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के “(१६) िलए िनगरत शासनादेश के अनुसार उ०पर० बेिसक िशका पिरषद दारा अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के तकनीकी चरण एवं परिकया का िनधाररण िकया जायेगा तथा शासनादेश के कम मे अगरतर कायरवाही की जायेगी। अनतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण हेतु समय- (१७) पिरषद दारा अपने सतर से पृथक से िनगरत की जायेगी। सािरणी सिचव, बेिसक िशका पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के (१८) उपरानत अनतजरनपदीय एवं िशकक/ िशिकका को कायरमुकत करने तथा कायरभार गरहण करने की कायरवाही मधय शैिकक सत मे नहीं की जायेगी। िशकक/ िशिकका को कायरमुकत करने तथा कायरभार गरहण करने की कायरवाही अवकाश के दौरान ही की जायेगी।" मे उललेिखत ' अब नयायालय को यह िनधारिरत करना है िक पिरपत िदनाँक २८.०६.२०२३ १७. सथानानतिरत जनपद मे बैच की पदोननित वषर/मौिलक के खणड (५) िनयुिकत ितिथ के आधार पर' कायरमुकत करने की कायरवाही का कोई नयायोिचत कारण है अथवा नही। यहां यह धयान रखना होगा िक यािचकाकतारगण के संबंध मे अंतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण का आदेश पािरत हो गया था परनतु उपरोकत खणड (५) के कारण उनको कायरमुकत नहीं िकया गया है। उपरोकत विणरत खणड (५)

१८. परतीत नही होती है परनतु पिरषद के दारा दायर परितउतर पत व उसके अिधवकता के कथन से सपषटता परतीत होती है, पदोननित पद पर है सथानानतिरत जनपद, नही हुयी है, विरषठता पर रहे। िफर भी वो उनके बैच मे कायररत िशकक/ पदोननित नहीं की गई है, यािचकाकतारगण ही विरषठ रहेगे। िजससे असमंजसता की के अनतःवसतु के मात पिरशीलन से सपषटता िवदान िक अगर यािचकाकतारगण जो िशककों की पदोननित िनमनतम िजनको से विरषठ हो जायेगे और उनके पदोननित होने के बाद भी िसथित उतपनन हो कायरभार गरहण कराया जाता है तो वो अपने संवगर मे िशिकका जहां उनके बैच के चाहे विरषठता सूची मूल जनपद के सतर पर ही कयो न हो। यह िसथित िलए परितकू ल होगी। उपरोकत विणरत कारण एक को वैधािनकता परदान करता है। के अऩ्तःवसतु मे और सपषटता ला पाते तो अचछा जायेगी, सहकमी को साथ कायर करने के नीितयुकत कारण है जो उपरोकत खणड (५) अगर पिरषद उकत खणड (५) होता। अिगरम सथानानतरण नीित मे सपषटता का धयान रखना चािहये। 12 मा० उचचतम नयायालय के एक नवीन िनणरय जो

१९. संघ व अनयः २०२३ एस.सी.सी. पािरत िकया गया है, मे पुनः यह परितपािदत िकया िकः- ऑनलाइन एस.सी. ९८५, देवेश शमार परित भारत के परकरण मे हमारे मिसतषक मे “ ७३. िनिशचत रप से कोई संदेह नही है, िक साधारणतः राजय के नीितगत िनणरयों मे संवैधािनक नयायालयों दारा उसके पुनः िनरीकण अिधकारो के अंतगरत हसताकेप नहीं िकया जा सकता है। इसी के साथ अगर नीितगत िनणरय सवयं मे ही िविध के िवरद और वो मनमाना व तकर हीन हो तो पुनःिनरीकण के अिधकार का उपयोग करना ही चािहये।" सतयदेव बागुर परित के परकरण मे पूवर मे कृ षणनन कककनाथ परित के रल राजयः(१९९७) ९ एस.सी.सी. ४९५ व िनणरयों का संदभर

२०. मा० उचचतम नयायालय दारा एक अनय परकरण राजसथान शासन व अनय (२०२२) ५ एस.सी.सी. ३२४, पािरत शेर िसंह परित भारत संघः (१९९५) ६ एस.सी.सी. ५१५ लेते हुए यह िनणीत िकया िकः- के यह अितसामानय है “१५. िक नयायालय नीितगत मामलो मे हसतकेप करने मे मनद रहेगे, जब तक िक नीित सपषट रप से पकपाती और मनमानी न सथािपत हो जाये। यह नयायालय राजय की नीितगत िनणरय मे हसतकेप नही करेगा, िक नीित के कायारवहन मे युिकतयुकत अंतर है और वो युिकतयुकत अंतर, उसके उदेशय की परािपत से संबंध रखता है। ” जब राजय यह इंिगत कर सके जो एक युिकतयुकत अनतर है, जैसा ऊपर िवशलेषण िकया गया है िक खणड (५)

२१. के अनतःवसतु का आधार नयायोिचत एवं नयाय संगत है, िजसका संबंध उदेशय की परािपत के िलये है िक अगर यािचकाकतार गणो को सथानानतिरत जनपद, जहां उनके बैच के सह िशकको की पदोननित नही ं हुई है, सथानानतिरत कर िदया जाये तो वहां अवयवसथा हो जायेगी और सहकमी को साथ काम करने मे असहजता होगी। अतः इसको िनरसत करने की पराथरना असवीकार की जाती है। और यह यािचका बलहीन होने के कारण िनरसत की जाती है।"

20. It   has   been   brought   to   our   notice   that   several   writ petitions seeking similar reliefs were dismissed, and against one of such orders, Special Appeal No.61 of 2024 [Smt. Radha Vs. State   of   U.P.   And   4   Others],   was   filed,   and   the   same   was dismissed by a co­ordinate Bench, by means of an order dated

16.02.2024. The aforesaid order is being reproduced below: “1. Following orders were passed on 06.02.2024:- "1. Appellant was transferred in terms of the Inter District Transfer Policy from Mirzapur to Lucknow. She was however not allowed joining on the ground that though she was promoted to the 13 post of Head Mistress at Mirzapur but persons senior to the appellant were still working as Assistant Teacher at Lucknow. The cadre of Assistant Teacher is otherwise a district level cadre. The authorities accordingly have refused to allow joining to the appellant at Lucknow and have also cancelled her transfer. 2. A representation was made by the appellant stating that she is willing to give up her claim of promotion and she would accept her transfer to Lucknow on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary institution. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been bestowed any consideration and therefore, the order of the authority rejecting petitioner's representation is unsustainable.

3. Learned counsel representing the respondents seeks a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.

4. Put up on 16.02.2024, as fresh."

2. Ms. Archana Singh, appearing for the Basic Shiksha Board, states that in the past also such claims have been put forward by the teachers, who gave preference to their posting at the place of their liking by giving up their previous promotion on the post of Headmistress. Such claims were rejected by the Board. It is also submitted that during the academic session it would not be in the academic interest to consider any personal for transfer. It is also urged that the claim of the appellant, if allowed, may result in large number of other persons coming up with similar pursuits, which would adversely affect the functioning of these institutions. Learned counsel then states that as and when posts are available on the post of Headmistress at Lucknow and the claim of seniority would not be breached, the claim of appellant for promotion be accorded consideration in terms of the policy.

3. We find substance in the objection of the respondents, inasmuch as transfer cannot be insisted upon by a teacher as a matter of right. Consideration regarding smooth functioning of the educational institutions would be of paramount importance. It is otherwise not disputed that persons senior to the appellant since are continuing at Lucknow as Assistant Teacher, her claim of transfer as Headmistress would create unnecessary heart burn. Giving up claim of promotion also creates complications as very often such claims are revived. It may otherwise lead to more similar claims being raised by other teachers. It is otherwise undisputed that the cadre of teacher/headmistress under the Rules is a district cadre post and transfer, outside the district, can only be allowed in terms of the policy.

4. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the matter and, consequently, the present appeal is consigned to records. It goes without saying that as and when fresh transfer policy is floated by the department, it shall be open to the appellant to apply and her claim would be examined in accordance with the policy.”

21. It has been further pointed out that subsequently one of 14 the petitioners in the leading writ petition in the batch of writ petitions   decided   in   terms   of   the   judgment   under   appeal, preferred   a   special   appeal,   being  Special   Appeal   Defective No.159  of  2024 [Shradha Yadav  Vs. State of  U.P. through Secretary,   Department   of   Basic   Shiksha],   which   too   was dismissed by means of an order dated 28.02.2024, following the order passed in the appeal of Smt. Radha (supra). The aforesaid order   dated   28.02.2024   passed   in   the   special   appeal   is   as follows: “(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)

1. Heard.

2. Delay in filing the present appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present appeal.

3. Application stands allowed. Ref: Appeal

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents

5. It is pointed out that similar controversy, as is raised in this petition, has been adjudicated by this Court in Special Appeal No.61 of 2024 (Smt. Radha vs. State of U.P. and others) vide following order passed on 16.2.2024:- "1. Following orders were passed on 06.02.2024:- "1. Appellant was transferred in terms of the Inter District Transfer Policy from Mirzapur to Lucknow. She was however not allowed joining on the ground that though she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress at Mirzapur but persons senior to the appellant were still working as Assistant Teacher at Lucknow. The cadre of Assistant Teacher is otherwise a district level cadre. The authorities accordingly have refused to allow joining to the appellant at Lucknow and have also cancelled her transfer.

2. A representation was made by the appellant stating that she is willing to give up her claim of promotion and she would accept her transfer to Lucknow on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary institution. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been bestowed any consideration and therefore, the order of the authority rejecting petitioner's representation is unsustainable. 15

3. Learned counsel representing the respondents seeks a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.

4. Put up on 16.02.2024, as fresh."

2. Ms. Archana Singh, appearing for the Basic Shiksha Board, states that in the past also such claims have been put forward by the teachers, who gave preference to their posting at the place of their liking by giving up their previous promotion on the post of Headmistress. Such claims were rejected by the Board. It is also submitted that during the academic session it would not be in the academic interest to consider any personal for transfer. It is also urged that the claim of the appellant, if allowed, may result in large number of other persons coming up with similar pursuits, which would adversely affect the functioning of these institutions. Learned counsel then states that as and when posts are available on the post of Headmistress at Lucknow and the claim of seniority would not be breached, the claim of appellant for promotion be accorded consideration in terms of the policy.

3. We find substance in the objection of the respondents, inasmuch as transfer cannot be insisted upon by a teacher as a matter of right. Consideration regarding smooth functioning of the educational institutions would be of paramount importance. It is otherwise not disputed that persons senior to the appellant since are continuing at Lucknow as Assistant Teacher, her claim of transfer as Headmistress would create unnecessary heart burn. Giving up claim of promotion also creates complications as very often such claims are revived. It may otherwise lead to more similar claims being raised by other teachers. It is otherwise undisputed that the cadre of teacher/headmistress under the Rules is a district cadre post and transfer, outside the district, can only be allowed in terms of the policy.

4. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the matter and, consequently, the present appeal is consigned to records. It goes without saying that as and when fresh transfer policy is floated by the department, it shall be open to the appellant to apply and her claim would be examined in accordance with the policy."

6. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 16.2.2024 and the controversy being identical, this writ petition is also disposed of on same terms.”

22. Against the judgment in the Special Appeal in the case of Smt.   Radha  (supra),   a   special   leave   petition   being  Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10912 of 2024 [Radha Vs. State of U.P. & Others] was preferred, which stood dismissed by an 16 order dated 13.05.2024.

23. Accordingly, even if the grounds which are now sought to be   urged   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   are   taken   into consideration   the   controversy   involved   in   the   present   case   is fully covered in terms of the judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.159 of 2024 (Shradha Yadav Vs. State of UP through Secretary, Department of Basic Shiksha).

24. We are not inclined to take a different view in the matter.

25. The special appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Order Date :­ 16.01.2025 Arun K. Singh [Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]    [V.K. Birla, J.]

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4. The amendment application is allowed. Order on Writ Petition. Learned   senior   counsel   fairly   submits   that   on   the   issue   of clause 5 of a circular issued by the Secretary Basic Shiksha Parishad in pursuance of the transfer policy 2023­2024, this Court has reserved a judgement. 3 Learned   senior   counsel   further   submits   that   in   peculiar circumstances   of   the   present   case   that   in   pursuance   of transfer orders passed  by the respondents, petitioners were relieved from district Chitrakoot, and submitted their joining before   the   Basic   Shiksha   Adhikari,   Jhansi,   respectively   on 03.07.2023, 07.07.2023 and later on they were allotted their respective   institutions   and   they   have   joined   their   also   on 14.09.2023, 15.09.2023 respectively. Learned senior counsel further submits that subsequently by the   independent   impugned   order   dated   29.11.2023 petitioners' transfer order was set aside which was brought on record by way of an amendment application and challenged, and   they   were   directed   to   report   to   their   original   district Chitrakoot. Learned   senior   counsel   submits   that   at   mid   session   of   the present   educational   year,   impugned   orders   will   adversely affect studies of students and prayed that it may be set aside and   at  least  kept   in   abeyance  till  end   of   present   academic session   so   that   they   may   file   a   fresh   application   for   their interstate transfer if situation so warrant. Ms.   Archana   Singh,   learned   counsel   for   respondents   has opposed the aforesaid prayer, however, she has not disputed that normally no transfer is allowed in mid session. In the aforesaid circumstances, without going into the merits of the case in regard to the effect of clause 5 of a circular issued   by   the   Board,   I   find   merit   in   argument   of   learned senior counsel for the petitioners that it would be adverse to the interest of students to allow petitioners to relieve from their transferred place in mid session in this regard reliance placed of clause 18 of the transfer policy dated 02.06.2023 is also taken note of. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 29.11.2023 are kept in abeyance   till   end   of   present   educational   session   and   the petitioners will be at liberty to file a fresh application in terms of prevailing transfer policy for next academic session if so advice. This   writ   petition   is   disposed   of   with   aforesaid observation/directions.”

6. The   principal   ground   which   is   sought   to   be   taken   in support   of   the   appeal   is   that   by   submitting   that   the   orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer, in terms of which the petitioners were relieved for rejoining their original place of posting   at   District   Chitrakoot,   having   been   challenged   by 4 amending the writ petition, there existed no justification for the aforesaid   controversy   not   to   be   adjudicated   on   merits   by   the learned   Single   Judge   while   deciding   the   writ   petition.   The orders passed by the District Basic Education Officer relieving the petitioners are being sought to be challenged by asserting that the said orders are based upon a Circular dated 28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, Board of Education, and therefore there was no justification for passing the said orders on the basis of conditions which were not part of the order passed by the State Government.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and also   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   Board   of   Education   have pointed   out   that   Clause   5   of   the   Circular   dated   28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board which forms the   basis   of   the   orders   which   were   impugned   in   the   writ petition,   were   subject   matter   of   challenge   in   a   batch   of   writ petitions, leading being Writ – A No. ­ 15163 of 2023 [Shraddha Yadav and 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 10 Others], which had been heard at length, and the Court had reserved its judgment.

8. It is pointed out   that  before   the   writ  court,  the  learned Senior Counsel after making a fair submission in this regard had submitted   that   in   the   mid­session   of   the   current   academic session the impugned orders would adversely affect the studies of   the   students   and   accordingly   made   a   prayer   that   the impugned   orders   by   means   of   which   the   petitioners'   transfer orders had been set aside, and they were directed to join their original   place   of   posting,   be   set   aside   or   at   least   be   kept   in abeyance till the end of the current academic session. 5

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge without going into the merits of the case in regard to the effect of Clause­5 of the Circular issued by the Basic Education Board held that there was merit in the argument of the petitioners and it would be adverse to the interest of the students to allow the petitioners' transfer from their present place of posting in the mid   session.   In   this   regard,   Clause­18   of   the   transfer   policy dated 02.06.2023 was also taken note of. Accordingly, the writ petition   was   disposed   of   with   a   direction   that   the   impugned orders dated 29.11.2023 be kept in abeyance till the end of the current academic session and the petitioners were set at liberty to   file   fresh   applications   in   terms   of   the   prevailing   transfer policy for the next academic session, if so advised.

10. Counsel for the appellant has sought to advert to certain grounds   taken   in   the   memo   of   appeal   to   contend   that   the transfer   policy   of   the   teachers   for   the   year   2023­2024   was determined   as   per   the   Government   Order   dated   02.06.2023, and   the   orders   dated   29.11.2023   issued   by   the   District   Basic Education Officer, Jhansi, which were based on a Circular Letter dated 28.06.2023, cannot be legally supported. It was sought to be   argued   that   there   was   no   justification   for   passing   of   the orders impugned on the basis of conditions which were not part of the Government Order dated 02.06.2023.

11. Counsel appearing for  the State respondents as also the counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have controverted the aforesaid submissions by pointing out that the aforesaid grounds which are sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants were neither raised nor pressed before the learned Single Judge 6 and as such the appellants cannot support the appeal by raising the said grounds at this stage.

12. It is pointed out that a bare reading of the order under appeal  would   indicate   that   the  learned   counsel   appearing  for the petitioners before the writ court had fairly submitted that on the   issue   of   validity   of   Clause­5   of   the   circular   issued   by   the Secretary,   Basic   Shiksha   Parishad,   the   Court   had   already reserved   its   judgment.   It   was   in   the   said   backdrop   that   the counsel appearing before the learned Single Judge had made a submission   that   the   impugned   orders   dated   29.11.2023,   in terms of which the transfer orders of the petitioners had been cancelled would adversely affect the studies of the students, and a prayer was made that the said orders may be set aside or at least   kept   in   abeyance   till   the   end   of   the   current   academic session. It is submitted that the grounds which are now sought to be urged in the present appeal, have been duly examined in the batch of writ petitions, leading petition being Writ – A No. ­ 15163 of 2023 [Shraddha Yadav And 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 10 Others], which were subsequently decided in terms of the judgment dated 09.01.2024, and similar contentions which were raised were repelled.

13. The question as to whether the points allegedly raised but not   dealt   with   in   the   judgment   impugned   can   be   pressed   in support   of   an   appeal   thereagainst,   was   adverted   to   in   the decision   of  Mohd.   Akram   Ansari   Vs.   Chief   Election   Officer and others1, and it was held that there is a presumption in law that a Judge deals with all the points which have been pressed 1 (2008) 2 SCC 95 7 before him and that a party who has grievance must approach the   same   court   which   passed   the   judgment   and   to   urge   that other   points   were   pressed   but   not   dealt   with.   The   relevant observations   made   in   the   judgment,   in   this   regard,   are   as follows:­ “14.   In   this   connection   we   would   like   to   say   that   there   is   a presumption   in  law   that   a  Judge  deals   with   all   the   points   which have been pressed before him. It often happens that in a petition or appeal several points are taken in the memorandum of the petition or appeal, but at the time of arguments only some of these points are pressed. Naturally a Judge will deal only with the points which are pressed before him in the arguments and it will be presumed that   the   appellant   gave   up   the   other   points,   otherwise   he   would have   dealt   with   them   also.   If   a   point   is   not   mentioned   in   the judgment of a Court, the presumption is that that point was never pressed before the learned Judge and it was given up. However, that is a rebuttable presumption. In case the petitioner contends that he had pressed that point also (which has not been dealt with in the impugned judgment), it is open to him to file an application before the same learned Judge (or Bench) which delivered the impugned judgment, and if he satisfies the Judge (or Bench) that the other points were in fact pressed, but were not dealt with in the impugned judgment,   it   is   open   to   the   concerned   Court   to   pass   appropriate orders, including an order of review. However, it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below. The  party who  has this grievance  must approach the same  Court which   passed   the   judgment,   and  urge  that  the  other  points  were pressed but not dealt with.

15. Since no other point except the point of office of profit has been dealt   with   in   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   the presumption   is   that   no   other   point   was   pressed   before   the   High Court,   even   though   the   point   may   have   been   contained   in   the election petition. Hence we do not allow these points to be raised here.”

14. Taking similar view in a case where several points were raised in the application but arguments were confined to, and therefore decision was given by the Tribunal on only one point, the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. N.V. Phaneendran2,  held that the appellants were not entitled to seek  opportunity to agitate the  remaining  questions  before the Tribunal. It was observed as follows:­ 8 “4. It is next contended that though several contentions have been raised on merits, the Tribunal had only dealt with on this issue and, therefore, an opportunity may be given to the respondent to agitate those questions by remitting the matter to the Tribunal. We find it difficult   to   accept   this   contention.   It   is   true   that   though   several points appear to have been raised, but before the Tribunal the only contention argued for the respondent was as extracted in paragraph 4 of the order of the Tribunal. It says: "The   only   point   that   was   urged   before   us   by   the   learned counsel   appearing   for   the   applicant   is   that   the   Divisional Railway Manager not being the appointing authority is not competent to impose a punishment of removal from service on the applicant who is a Travelling Ticker Examiner in the pay scale of Rs.425­640." Since   the   controversy   was   only   limited   to   this   point   before   the Tribunal, we do not find any justification to remit the matter.”

15. In the present case, the grounds which are sought to be urged in support of the appeal, may have been stated in the writ petition, but the judgment impugned does not indicate that any such ground was pressed. It is not the case of the appellants that the aforesaid grounds which are now sought to be taken in the appeal   were   argued   before   the   learned   Single   Judge   and   the same have not been accorded consideration.

16. It   is   commonly   observed   that   in   the   memorandum   of petition or appeal, several points may be taken but at the time of arguments only some of those points may be pressed. In such a situation the court concerned would deal only with the points which are argued and there would be a presumption that the party   concerned   gave   up   the   challenges   based   on   the   other points. There is general presumption in law that a Judge deals 2 (1995) 6 SCC 45 9 with all the points which have been argued before him, and in case   the   party   seeks   to   contend   that   he   had   pressed   certain points which have not been considered, it would be open to him to   file   an   application   before   the   same   learned   Judge   which delivered the judgment, and seek an order of review. It would ordinarily be not open to the party concerned to argue a point in appeal,   which   even   if   taken   in   the   petition   before   the   court below, was neither argued nor pressed before the court of first instance.

17. In an  intra  Court  appeal,  the appellate  court  would not normally reassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court of first instance, if the one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material available. This would be more so in a case where the grounds   which   are   sought   to   be   urged   were   never   pressed before the court of first instance.

18. The judgment of the learned Single Judge clearly records that   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   had submitted that Clause­5 of the circular dated 28.06.2023 issued by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, which forms basis of the   orders  which were   impugned in  the   writ  petition,  was subject matter of challenge in a batch of writ petitions, wherein the   Court   had   reserved   its   judgment.   It   was   in   the   said background that the learned counsel submitted before the writ Court   that   in   the   midst   of   the   current   academic   session,   the impugned   orders   would   adversely   affect   the   studies   of   the students and accordingly prayed that the same may be set side or at least kept in abeyance till the end of the academic session. 10 Finding   merit   in   the   aforesaid   argument   that   it   would   be adverse to the interest of the students to allow the petitioners to be relieved from their transferred place in the mid­session, the learned   Single   Judge   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   with   a direction that the impugned order dated 29.11.2023 be kept in abeyance   till   the   end   of   the   current   academic   session.   The judgment under appeal does not indicate that any other ground was urged before the learned Single Judge, and therefore we are of the view that it would not be open to the appellants to press any other ground which had not been argued before the learned Single Judge.

19. Even otherwise, the grounds which are now sought to be urged   in   support   of   the   present   appeal   have   been   duly considered in the batch of writ petitions with leading petition being Writ­A No.15163 of 2023 (Shraddha Yadav and others Vs. State of UP and others)  which were decided in terms of judgment dated 09.01.2024 and similar contentions which had been   raised,   were   repelled.   The   observations   made   in   the judgment in the case of Shraddha Yadav (supra), in this regard, are as follows:­ िनयम २१ मे यािचकाकतारगण की सेवाये "१३. ' िजसके की अनुमित नही देता है और सथानानतरण, अनुमोदन के िबना नही हो सकता है। िनयमावली १९८१ के परावधानो के अधीन है। ’ सथानानतरण का परावधान है जो सामानयतः सथानानतरण ’ पिरषद के यिद होता है तो वो, '

१४. पूवर मे उललेिखत िनणरयों से यह भी िनिवरवािदत है िक सथानानतरण नीित मात एक परशासिनक नीित है, िजसकी पृषठभूिम मे कोई वैधािनक परावधान नहीं है। िकसी भी कमरचारी को अपनी पसंद के सथान पर सथानानतरण का दावा करने का कोई मौिलक या िनिहत अिधकार परापत नही होता है। िशककों व िशिककाओं के वषर २०२३-

१५. २०२४ की अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण नीित को उतर परदेश शासन के शासनादेश िदनाँक ०२, जून, िनधारिरत की गई। इसके खणड १६, १७ व १८ पूवर मे ' उललेिखत िकये जा चुके है, िनधाररण का दाियतव सौपा गया और उसी कम मे, तकनीकी चरण एवं परिकया के के अनुसार पिरषद को इस सथानानतरण नीित के २०२३ दारा 11 २०२३ को २०२३ व २८.०६. सरकारी सेवा का लाभ, और सथानानतरण नीित के कम मे अगरतर कायरवाही हेतु सिचव, उ.पर. बेिसक िशका पिरषद ने पिरपत िदनांक १६.०६. िनगरत िकया, िजसके अनुसार ऑनलाइन आवेदन के सतयापन व परीकण की परिकया को िनधारिरत िकया। इन पिरपतों के माधयम से एकल अिभभावक, िदवयांगता, असाधय या गंभीर रोग, िवषय मे परावधान बनाये गये। इसी कम मे पिरपत िदनांक २८.०६. २०२३ दारा अनतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण परिकया के अनतगरत सथानानतिरत िशकक एवं िशिकका को कायरमुकत िकये जाने की कायरवाही की, (१६, िवसतृत परिकया को भी िनधारिरत िकया। इसी पिरपत के खणड (५) को िनरसत करने की पराथरना यािचकाकतारगण ने की है। उकत खणड पुनः िनमन उललेिखत िकया जा रहा हैः- १६४ िशकक एवं िसथित आिद के िनलमबन की िशिकका) परोननित पद पर कायररत िशकक एवं िशिकका के सथानानतिरत जनपद मौिलक िनयुिकत ितिथ के आधार पर कायरमुकत "५. मे बैच की पदोननित वषर/ करने की कायरवाही की जायेगी।" ' सथानानतरण नीित के खणड १६, जो उकत नीित के इसकी समय सािरणी व कायरमुकत कराने के समबनध मे है, १७ व १८ के अनतवरसतु से सपषट है, जो १६. पिरषद के उकत पिरपतों को, तकनीकी चरण व परिकया के िनधाररण , ’ िनगरत करने िलए सपषट रप से पिरषद के सिचव को अिधकृ त करते है। अतः उकत के पिरपतों को िनगरत करने का अिधकार सिचव, उ.पर. बेिसक िशका पिरषद को पूणर रप से था। अतः पिरपत वैधािनक है व िविधक रप से संधारणीय भी है। यह न िक उसकी पिरपत सथानानतरण नीित के कम मे उसके कायरवाहन के परकृ ित के िलए सथानानतरण नीित के खणड १६, १७ व १८ पुनः िनमन उललेिखत िकये जा रहे हैः- िवरोध मे िनगरत िकये गये है। सपषटता व संदभर के िलए है, अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के “(१६) िलए िनगरत शासनादेश के अनुसार उ०पर० बेिसक िशका पिरषद दारा अनतजरनपदीय एवं पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के तकनीकी चरण एवं परिकया का िनधाररण िकया जायेगा तथा शासनादेश के कम मे अगरतर कायरवाही की जायेगी। अनतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण हेतु समय- (१७) पिरषद दारा अपने सतर से पृथक से िनगरत की जायेगी। सािरणी सिचव, बेिसक िशका पारसपिरक सथानानतरण के (१८) उपरानत अनतजरनपदीय एवं िशकक/ िशिकका को कायरमुकत करने तथा कायरभार गरहण करने की कायरवाही मधय शैिकक सत मे नहीं की जायेगी। िशकक/ िशिकका को कायरमुकत करने तथा कायरभार गरहण करने की कायरवाही अवकाश के दौरान ही की जायेगी।" मे उललेिखत ' अब नयायालय को यह िनधारिरत करना है िक पिरपत िदनाँक २८.०६.२०२३ १७. सथानानतिरत जनपद मे बैच की पदोननित वषर/मौिलक के खणड (५) िनयुिकत ितिथ के आधार पर' कायरमुकत करने की कायरवाही का कोई नयायोिचत कारण है अथवा नही। यहां यह धयान रखना होगा िक यािचकाकतारगण के संबंध मे अंतजरनपदीय सथानानतरण का आदेश पािरत हो गया था परनतु उपरोकत खणड (५) के कारण उनको कायरमुकत नहीं िकया गया है। उपरोकत विणरत खणड (५)

१८. परतीत नही होती है परनतु पिरषद के दारा दायर परितउतर पत व उसके अिधवकता के कथन से सपषटता परतीत होती है, पदोननित पद पर है सथानानतिरत जनपद, नही हुयी है, विरषठता पर रहे। िफर भी वो उनके बैच मे कायररत िशकक/ पदोननित नहीं की गई है, यािचकाकतारगण ही विरषठ रहेगे। िजससे असमंजसता की के अनतःवसतु के मात पिरशीलन से सपषटता िवदान िक अगर यािचकाकतारगण जो िशककों की पदोननित िनमनतम िजनको से विरषठ हो जायेगे और उनके पदोननित होने के बाद भी िसथित उतपनन हो कायरभार गरहण कराया जाता है तो वो अपने संवगर मे िशिकका जहां उनके बैच के चाहे विरषठता सूची मूल जनपद के सतर पर ही कयो न हो। यह िसथित िलए परितकू ल होगी। उपरोकत विणरत कारण एक को वैधािनकता परदान करता है। के अऩ्तःवसतु मे और सपषटता ला पाते तो अचछा जायेगी, सहकमी को साथ कायर करने के नीितयुकत कारण है जो उपरोकत खणड (५) अगर पिरषद उकत खणड (५) होता। अिगरम सथानानतरण नीित मे सपषटता का धयान रखना चािहये। 12 मा० उचचतम नयायालय के एक नवीन िनणरय जो

१९. संघ व अनयः २०२३ एस.सी.सी. पािरत िकया गया है, मे पुनः यह परितपािदत िकया िकः- ऑनलाइन एस.सी. ९८५, देवेश शमार परित भारत के परकरण मे हमारे मिसतषक मे “ ७३. िनिशचत रप से कोई संदेह नही है, िक साधारणतः राजय के नीितगत िनणरयों मे संवैधािनक नयायालयों दारा उसके पुनः िनरीकण अिधकारो के अंतगरत हसताकेप नहीं िकया जा सकता है। इसी के साथ अगर नीितगत िनणरय सवयं मे ही िविध के िवरद और वो मनमाना व तकर हीन हो तो पुनःिनरीकण के अिधकार का उपयोग करना ही चािहये।" सतयदेव बागुर परित के परकरण मे पूवर मे कृ षणनन कककनाथ परित के रल राजयः(१९९७) ९ एस.सी.सी. ४९५ व िनणरयों का संदभर

२०. मा० उचचतम नयायालय दारा एक अनय परकरण राजसथान शासन व अनय (२०२२) ५ एस.सी.सी. ३२४, पािरत शेर िसंह परित भारत संघः (१९९५) ६ एस.सी.सी. ५१५ लेते हुए यह िनणीत िकया िकः- के यह अितसामानय है “१५. िक नयायालय नीितगत मामलो मे हसतकेप करने मे मनद रहेगे, जब तक िक नीित सपषट रप से पकपाती और मनमानी न सथािपत हो जाये। यह नयायालय राजय की नीितगत िनणरय मे हसतकेप नही करेगा, िक नीित के कायारवहन मे युिकतयुकत अंतर है और वो युिकतयुकत अंतर, उसके उदेशय की परािपत से संबंध रखता है। ” जब राजय यह इंिगत कर सके जो एक युिकतयुकत अनतर है, जैसा ऊपर िवशलेषण िकया गया है िक खणड (५)

२१. के अनतःवसतु का आधार नयायोिचत एवं नयाय संगत है, िजसका संबंध उदेशय की परािपत के िलये है िक अगर यािचकाकतार गणो को सथानानतिरत जनपद, जहां उनके बैच के सह िशकको की पदोननित नही ं हुई है, सथानानतिरत कर िदया जाये तो वहां अवयवसथा हो जायेगी और सहकमी को साथ काम करने मे असहजता होगी। अतः इसको िनरसत करने की पराथरना असवीकार की जाती है। और यह यािचका बलहीन होने के कारण िनरसत की जाती है।"

20. It   has   been   brought   to   our   notice   that   several   writ petitions seeking similar reliefs were dismissed, and against one of such orders, Special Appeal No.61 of 2024 [Smt. Radha Vs. State   of   U.P.   And   4   Others],   was   filed,   and   the   same   was dismissed by a co­ordinate Bench, by means of an order dated

16.02.2024. The aforesaid order is being reproduced below: “1. Following orders were passed on 06.02.2024:- "1. Appellant was transferred in terms of the Inter District Transfer Policy from Mirzapur to Lucknow. She was however not allowed joining on the ground that though she was promoted to the 13 post of Head Mistress at Mirzapur but persons senior to the appellant were still working as Assistant Teacher at Lucknow. The cadre of Assistant Teacher is otherwise a district level cadre. The authorities accordingly have refused to allow joining to the appellant at Lucknow and have also cancelled her transfer. 2. A representation was made by the appellant stating that she is willing to give up her claim of promotion and she would accept her transfer to Lucknow on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary institution. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been bestowed any consideration and therefore, the order of the authority rejecting petitioner's representation is unsustainable.

3. Learned counsel representing the respondents seeks a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.

4. Put up on 16.02.2024, as fresh."

2. Ms. Archana Singh, appearing for the Basic Shiksha Board, states that in the past also such claims have been put forward by the teachers, who gave preference to their posting at the place of their liking by giving up their previous promotion on the post of Headmistress. Such claims were rejected by the Board. It is also submitted that during the academic session it would not be in the academic interest to consider any personal for transfer. It is also urged that the claim of the appellant, if allowed, may result in large number of other persons coming up with similar pursuits, which would adversely affect the functioning of these institutions. Learned counsel then states that as and when posts are available on the post of Headmistress at Lucknow and the claim of seniority would not be breached, the claim of appellant for promotion be accorded consideration in terms of the policy.

3. We find substance in the objection of the respondents, inasmuch as transfer cannot be insisted upon by a teacher as a matter of right. Consideration regarding smooth functioning of the educational institutions would be of paramount importance. It is otherwise not disputed that persons senior to the appellant since are continuing at Lucknow as Assistant Teacher, her claim of transfer as Headmistress would create unnecessary heart burn. Giving up claim of promotion also creates complications as very often such claims are revived. It may otherwise lead to more similar claims being raised by other teachers. It is otherwise undisputed that the cadre of teacher/headmistress under the Rules is a district cadre post and transfer, outside the district, can only be allowed in terms of the policy.

4. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the matter and, consequently, the present appeal is consigned to records. It goes without saying that as and when fresh transfer policy is floated by the department, it shall be open to the appellant to apply and her claim would be examined in accordance with the policy.”

21. It has been further pointed out that subsequently one of 14 the petitioners in the leading writ petition in the batch of writ petitions   decided   in   terms   of   the   judgment   under   appeal, preferred   a   special   appeal,   being  Special   Appeal   Defective No.159  of  2024 [Shradha Yadav  Vs. State of  U.P. through Secretary,   Department   of   Basic   Shiksha],   which   too   was dismissed by means of an order dated 28.02.2024, following the order passed in the appeal of Smt. Radha (supra). The aforesaid order   dated   28.02.2024   passed   in   the   special   appeal   is   as follows: “(Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application)

1. Heard.

2. Delay in filing the present appeal is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. Delay is, accordingly, condoned. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present appeal.

3. Application stands allowed. Ref: Appeal

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents

5. It is pointed out that similar controversy, as is raised in this petition, has been adjudicated by this Court in Special Appeal No.61 of 2024 (Smt. Radha vs. State of U.P. and others) vide following order passed on 16.2.2024:- "1. Following orders were passed on 06.02.2024:- "1. Appellant was transferred in terms of the Inter District Transfer Policy from Mirzapur to Lucknow. She was however not allowed joining on the ground that though she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress at Mirzapur but persons senior to the appellant were still working as Assistant Teacher at Lucknow. The cadre of Assistant Teacher is otherwise a district level cadre. The authorities accordingly have refused to allow joining to the appellant at Lucknow and have also cancelled her transfer.

2. A representation was made by the appellant stating that she is willing to give up her claim of promotion and she would accept her transfer to Lucknow on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary institution. It is submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been bestowed any consideration and therefore, the order of the authority rejecting petitioner's representation is unsustainable. 15

3. Learned counsel representing the respondents seeks a week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.

4. Put up on 16.02.2024, as fresh."

2. Ms. Archana Singh, appearing for the Basic Shiksha Board, states that in the past also such claims have been put forward by the teachers, who gave preference to their posting at the place of their liking by giving up their previous promotion on the post of Headmistress. Such claims were rejected by the Board. It is also submitted that during the academic session it would not be in the academic interest to consider any personal for transfer. It is also urged that the claim of the appellant, if allowed, may result in large number of other persons coming up with similar pursuits, which would adversely affect the functioning of these institutions. Learned counsel then states that as and when posts are available on the post of Headmistress at Lucknow and the claim of seniority would not be breached, the claim of appellant for promotion be accorded consideration in terms of the policy.

3. We find substance in the objection of the respondents, inasmuch as transfer cannot be insisted upon by a teacher as a matter of right. Consideration regarding smooth functioning of the educational institutions would be of paramount importance. It is otherwise not disputed that persons senior to the appellant since are continuing at Lucknow as Assistant Teacher, her claim of transfer as Headmistress would create unnecessary heart burn. Giving up claim of promotion also creates complications as very often such claims are revived. It may otherwise lead to more similar claims being raised by other teachers. It is otherwise undisputed that the cadre of teacher/headmistress under the Rules is a district cadre post and transfer, outside the district, can only be allowed in terms of the policy.

4. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the matter and, consequently, the present appeal is consigned to records. It goes without saying that as and when fresh transfer policy is floated by the department, it shall be open to the appellant to apply and her claim would be examined in accordance with the policy."

6. For the reasons recorded in the order dated 16.2.2024 and the controversy being identical, this writ petition is also disposed of on same terms.”

22. Against the judgment in the Special Appeal in the case of Smt.   Radha  (supra),   a   special   leave   petition   being  Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10912 of 2024 [Radha Vs. State of U.P. & Others] was preferred, which stood dismissed by an 16 order dated 13.05.2024.

23. Accordingly, even if the grounds which are now sought to be   urged   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   are   taken   into consideration   the   controversy   involved   in   the   present   case   is fully covered in terms of the judgment dated 28.02.2024 passed in Special Appeal Defective No.159 of 2024 (Shradha Yadav Vs. State of UP through Secretary, Department of Basic Shiksha).

24. We are not inclined to take a different view in the matter.

25. The special appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. Order Date :­ 16.01.2025 Arun K. Singh [Dr. Y.K. Srivastava, J.]    [V.K. Birla, J.]