Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Kishan Kem v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 3432 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1286 (22 January 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.39

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3432/2007

Ram Kishan Kem           Vs.               State of U.P. and others


Hon'ble Ran Viaji Singh J.

This writ petition has been filed by one Sri Ram Kishan Kem who happened to be Head Master in Senior Basic School Dahataura Block Bischpura challenging the order dated 6.1.2007 by which he has been transferred by Basic Education Officer Agra from Dahataura to Hollipura Block Jagner District Agra on the administrative ground. The case of the petitioner is that in Junior Basic School Dahataura there happened to be two Asstt. teachers, namely Miss Meena Bharti and Madhulika Rani they had not been performing their duties properly by attending the school in time and creating hindrance in the studies of the students and they were also misbehaving  with petitioner (Head Master of the school). In this regard the petitioner has given many representations to the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The details have been brought on record by various annexures and from perusal of these annexures it transpires that the petitioner had been complaining  against Smt. Madhulika Rani and Miss.Meena Bharti right from July 2006 and after many  complainants, Basic Shiksha Adhikari Agra by order dated 30.12.2006 has transferred Smt. Madhulika Rani and Miss Meena Bharti in different schools. Against this transfer Smt. Meena Bharti has made representation to the Director of Basic Education U.P. and the Director of Education Basic U.P. Lucknow vide  order dated 5.1.2007 had directed the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari to cancel the transfer order of  Miss. Meena Bharti. Pursuant to the same, the transfer of Miss. Meena Bharti had been cancelled on 6.1.2007 and on the same day the petitioner has been transferred on the administrative ground. Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:

(a) the impugned order dated 6.1.2007 transferring the petitioner  on the ground of financial irregularity in charging examination fee is punitive order as before passing this order no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and on definite conclusion of charging irregular fee  has been drawn and the petitioner has been transferred.

(b) the impugned order has been passed on the instance of Assistant teachers by the BSA totally on imaginary ground. Had there been anything against the petitioner that could have at least been shown to him prior to 6.1.07 or on or after  30.12.2006 on which date Assistant Teachers were transferred.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner ,Sri Hamendra Prasad Singh learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1,2 and 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the respondent no.6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the operation of the impugned order dated 6.1.2007 is stayed for a period of eight weeks.

The counsel appearing for the respondents pray for and are  granted one months time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit if any may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Learned counsel  appearing for  respondents while filing the counter affidavit will bring on record the copy of the order dated 5.1.2007 passed by Director of Education Basic U.P. referred in the order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari dated 6.1.2007 by which the transfer of Miss Meena Bharti has been cancelled.  He may also bring on record the representation of Miss Meena Bharti to Director of Education and complaints against the petitioner with regard to charge of irregular fee from the students.

List this case after expiry of six weeks.

Copy of the order may be supplied to the learned Chief Standing Counsel/ Standing Counsel for communication to the authorities.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.