Education Department is one of the largest litigants before this court, and the vast proportion of writ petitions involve the transfer and adjustment of instructors.: Himachal Pradesh High Court
The court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the transfer order, and adding that the government is equally liable for breaking notices imposing a transfer prohibition, is upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN AND BHUSAN BAROWALIA, in the case of Milap Chand v. State of HP, (2021 SCC OnLine HP 560).
Brief facts of the case:
The petitioner was elevated to the position of Headmaster and assigned to Government High School Naila in Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, after a long period of dedicated service. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Principal and posted to Government Senior Secondary School in Dugli, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, where he has been serving until the present time. He has filed the instant petition seeking a direction from Respondent No. 1 to transfer from a hard area to a soft area/station, citing his age (now 55) and the needs of his family as reasons for the transfer.
An lawyer for the petitioner stated that the petitioner’s wife has a hearing impairment and is receiving treatment at the Rajiv Gandhi Post Graduate Ayurvedic College and Hospital in Paprola, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh; furthermore, the petitioner’s wife has a Gall Bladder stone and needs proper medication and surgery; however, there is no one at home to care for her because the petitioner’s son works in the private sector in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, and the petition.
JUDGEMNET:
The Court went on to note that the petitioner is, as noted above, a teacher appointed to educate pupils, and that the standards required of a person practising the noble teaching profession must be ideal so that the students may know and practise the best principles of civilised life. It would be tragic if teachers, who are held in high esteem, fell from grace by putting their own needs above those of their students (s).
The Court determined that Principals are almost always older than 55 and can be moved or served anyplace in the State if they were formerly Headmasters. Therefore, the petitioner’s age, which is beyond 55, cannot be used as a basis for rejecting the transfer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI