In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that once the requisition for filling the post of Principal is sent to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board, the vacancy cannot be filled by transfer. The decision came in two writ petitions challenging the transfer orders issued after such requisition. The court held that the saving clause under the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, protects actions taken under the repealed 1982 Act.
Background of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions filed by Rajiv Kumar (Writ A No. 12611 of 2024) and Hari Sharan (Writ A No. 11436 of 2024) challenging the transfer of new principals to their respective institutions. The petitioners, who were senior-most teachers and had been serving as officiating principals, argued that the posts had already been notified to the Board for recruitment, and thus could not be filled through transfer.
Rajiv Kumar was serving as Officiating Principal at Late Gaya Prasad Verma Smarak Krishak Inter College after the retirement of the previous Principal in 2019. Similarly, Hari Sharan was officiating as Principal at Sarvodaya Inter College, Nazirpur Sakeet, District Etah, after the retirement of the previous Principal in 2015. In both cases, the vacancies had been notified to the Board in 2019.
Legal Issues Involved:
The main legal question before the court was whether a vacancy for the post of Principal, once notified to the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Selection Board under the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Rules, 1998, could still be filled by transfer. The court also had to examine the effect of the Uttar Pradesh Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023, which repealed the 1982 Act and its Rules, and whether actions taken under the old Act were protected by the new legislation.
Court’s Observations:
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, presiding over the case, referred to the previous decisions of the Full Bench in Prashant Kumar Katiyar vs. State of U.P. and the Division Bench in Hari Pal Singh vs. State of U.P.. The court observed:
1. Procedure for Filling Vacancies:
“Once the requisition is sent to the Board as per sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the 1998 Rules, the post of Principal cannot be filled by transfer.” The court emphasized that the management or the District Inspector of Schools does not have the authority to alter the determination of vacancies once notified.
2. Saving Clause of the 2023 Act:
The court noted that Section 31(2) of the 2023 Act, which contains a saving clause, explicitly protects actions taken under the repealed 1982 Act. This means that vacancies notified under the 1998 Rules are still valid and cannot be disregarded due to the new law.
3. Transfers After Notification:
The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the proviso to Rule 28(5) of the 2023 Rules allowed for filling the vacancy by transfer. It held that the proviso only applies in special circumstances and does not override the notification made under the 1998 Rules.
Decision of the Court:
In its judgment, the Allahabad High Court set aside the transfer orders dated June 28, 2024, in both cases. The court held that the vacancies for the post of Principal could only be filled by the Board or Commission as per the rules, and not through transfers.
Case Details:
– Case Numbers: Writ A No. 12611 of 2024 and Writ A No. 11436 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Vinod Kumar Singh (for Rajiv Kumar) and Ajendra Kumar (for Hari Sharan)
– Respondents’ Counsel: C.S.C., Sankalp Narain, Sharad Chandra, Sandeep Kumar, and Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
