Kamla Bisht and others … v. State of Uttarakhand and others

exchanged by the parties.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been working in the non-accessible area for much long durations. Some of them have been working in such areas for more than 30 years. They are due for compulsory transfer. They cannot be denied transfer on the ground that a school having less than 150 students cannot have Head Master. He would submit that, in fact, in various schools where the petitioners are working, the strength of the students is even 2. A chart has been given in a supplementary affidavit, on behalf of the petitioner, which is as follows:- “Strength of Students Petitioners Name of head teacher Name of School Number of students 1 2

5. 6 7 8 Kamla Bisht GPS Pata Khaprar 28 Uma Arya GPS Bedchula 25 Sushma Bhima GPS Jaurasi 18 Rajni Chaudhary GPS Umagarh 15 Jaya Pathak GPS Chadyula Kavita Jala GPS Kotla Geeta Negi GPS Kafulta Himmat Singh GPS Bhewa 2 8 2 5 3 Ruhina Malik GPS Gadejar 18 Mamta Bhatt GPS Patgali 8 Rama Devi GPS Gajar Rajni Rani GPS Garjoli Maya Negi GPS Ramgarh Malla 22 18 5 Deepak Kumar GPS MAUNA Talla 18 Pooran Singh GPS Gaaj Bhuwan Chandra GPS Patori 5 5 Satish Chandra GPS Ulgaur 18 Rekha Parihar GPS Baghani 14 Usha Barfal GPS Patrani Manisha Pangtey GPS Izar 22 19 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

7. In fact, when the matter was heard on 29.04.2025, the Court had required the State to file a short affidavit categorically revealing as in how many basic schools in District Nainital, the strength of the students is more than 150 and also to give details as to in how many Head Masters in the basic schools are working. State has also filed a supplementary counter affidavit. In para 4 and 6 are important. They are as follows:- “4. That the details regarding the no. of basic schools of District Nainital and working Head Masters is as follows: Academic session Total no. of Government Primary School No. of working Head Masters in Government Primary Schools 2024-25 2025-26 920 916 596 574 (04 schools have been closed during academic session 2025-26) 4

6. That it is submitted here that at present in District Nainital there are 17 Government Primary Schools, where the strength of the students is 150 or above. In other words it can be said that at present in District Nainital for appointing the Head Masters on the basis of Pupil-Teacher ratio only 17 Government Primary Schools are fulfilling the Norms and Standards of RTE Act 2009. It is further submitted that out of those 17 schools there are 11 Head Masters are posted and 06 posts of Head Masters are vacant in those schools.”

8. State has admitted that in District Nainital against 916 Government School, in 574 Government Primary Schools Head Masters are working.

9. What is revealing is that in para 6 of its supplementary counter affidavit, State writes that there are 17 Government Primary Schools, where the strength of the students is 150 or above. It means that out of 574 Head Masters only in 17 Government Primary Schools, number of strength is more than 150. It does not mean that in other schools where the strength is less than 150, the Head Masters may be removed. Head Masters have been appointed in such schools also where the number of students is less than 150.

10. Apparently, there are large number of Government Primary schools, where the strength of students is less than 150 and there Head are Masters posted; In such a situation, as per transfer policy, they should be transferred. Their counselling or transfer may not be denied on the ground that there are less school having strength of the students more than 150. In view of it, this Court is of the view that the respondents may not deny the counselling of the petitioners on the ground that for transfer of Head Masters compulsorily there should be a strength of 150 or more students in a school. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

11. The writ petition is allowed. 5

12. The respondents are directed that merely on the basis of students’ strength, the counselling and transfer of the petitioners should not be denied. The respondents are further directed to consider the transfer of the petitioners unaffected by the number of students in the basic schools. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J) 16.05.2025