Sl.
No.",W.P.,Presently Posted,"Services
RenderedÂ
SUGAM","Services Rendered
DURGAM
Â
1.,1676/18,"Assistant Teacher
(Maths)
L.T. Govt. Higher Sec.
School, PatrampurÂ
Block Jaspur, District
Udham
Singh Nagar","Rules 2013/14
00 years 00 month
00 days
Act of 2017, 2
years 1 month 11
days","Rules 2013/14 19 years, 08
months, 21
days
Act of 2017, 00 years, 04
months, 01 day
2.,1678/18,"Lecturer (Economics)
G.I.C. Â Â Â Â
Matiyali    Â
Block
Dugadda, Distt. Pauri","Rules 2013/14
5 years, 3 months,
13 days
Act of 2017,Â
25 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â
11
months, 06 days","Rules 2013/14 27 years, 10
months, 06
days
Act of 2017, 44 years, 05
months,
          Â
04
days
3.,1679/18,"Lecturer (Biology)
G.I.C. Â Â Â Â
Matiyali    Â
Block
Dugadda, Distt. Pauri","Rules 2013/14
16 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â 08 months,
08 days
Act of 2017,Â
28 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â
00
months, 13 days","Rules 2013/14 09 years, 09
months, 00 days
Act of 2017,Â
01 year, 04 months, 28
days
4.,1683/18,"Assistant Teacher
(Hindi)
L.T. Grade, Govt.
Higher Sec. School,
Biria
Majhola, Block Khatima,
Distt. U.S. Nagar","Rules 2013/14
08 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â 11 months,
03 days
Act of 2017,Â
20 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â
11
months, 16 days","Rules 2013/14 10 years, 07
months, 10 days
Act of 2017, 00 years, 07
months,
          Â
09
days
5.,1687/18,"Assistant Teacher
(Maths)
G.I.C.College
Kanwaghati, Block
Dugadda, Distt.
PauriÂ","Rules 2013/14
14 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â
00
months, 12 days
Act of 2017,Â
19 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â
10","Rules 2013/14 11 years, 08
months, 03 days
Act of 2017,Â
7.,1690/18,"Lecturer (Pol. Sci.)
G.I.C. Kanwaghali,
Block
Dugadda, Distt. Pauri","Rules 2013/14
 04      Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â 08
months, 13 days
Act of 2017,Â
 29      Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â 05
months, 10 days","Rules 2013/14 23 years, 07
months, 21
days
Act of 2017, 00 years, 00
months, 00 day
8.,1691/18,"Lecturer (Maths) L.T.
Grade G.I.C. Ram
Nagar,
Distt. Nainital","Rules 2013/14
10 Â Â Â Â Â Â
years, Â 11 months, 02
days
Act of 2017,Â
 21      Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â 06
months, 01 day","Rules 2013/14 10 years, 08
months, 29
days
Act of 2017,Â
01 year, 07 months, 18
days
9.,1693/18,"Lecturer (Pol. Sci.)
G.I.C. Majari Mali
Block Diwala, Distt.
Dehradun","Rules 2013/14
,01 year, 06 months,
07 days
Act of 2017,Â
 25      Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â 02
months, 28 days","Rules 2013/14 28 years, 10
months, 10 days
Act of 2017, 06 years, 05
months,
          Â
04
days
10.,1695/18,"Assistant Teacher
(Maths)
L.T. Grade, G.I.C.
Ranighat, Block Betal
Ghat, Distt. Nainital","Rules 2013/14
03 years, 06 months, 08
days
Act of 2017,Â
 23      Â
years, Â Â Â Â Â 10","Rules 2013/14 23 years, 11
months, 14
days
Act of 2017,Â
,,,"months, 22 days","01 year, 07 months, 02
days
11.,1696/18,"Assistant Teacher
(Maths)
L.T. Grade, G.I.C.
Kanwaghati, Block
Dugadda, Distt. Pauri","Rules 2013/14 02
12
       Â
years,
months, 19 days 11
Act of 2017,Â
27
       Â
years,
months, 08 days","Rules 2013/14 15 years,
08 months, 24
days
Act of 2017, 03 years,
04 months,
         19
days
same have became irrelevant for the matter involved in question.,,,,
10.   The grievance of the petitioners is that without the receipt of details of the proposals for amendment as done earlier and the,,,,
classification of the institution effected on account of the implementation of the Transfer Policy in the year 2008, although it stood superseded in",,,,
2013 and 2014. The petitioners’ case and grievance is that even as per the Transfer Rules 2013 framed under Article 309, the respondents",,,,
have already undertaken the exercise of categorization of instutitons into Durgam; Sugam and Ati Durgam, as per criterions provided under Rule",,,,
4, by virtue of which all the schools were categorized. Accordingly, the points as determined to be allocated in the manner as given in Appendix-",,,,
A framed under Rule 7, 9(1); 10; 11 and 12, it was undergone and on completion of said exercise the period of service rendered by the petitioners",,,,
was already determined, the case of the petitioners are that the respondents prior to preparing of the impugned transfer list have not been",,,,
considered and taken note of the categorization and marks allotted for Durgam; Sugam etc. before framing the list by respondent under the Act,,,,
of 2017. The contention of the petitioners is that the settlement or benefit already done under the prevalent rules at the relevant time cannot be,,,,
nullified by subsequent legislative action which in the instant case is by enforcement of the Transfer Act, 2017.",,,,
11. The respondents have resorted to the impugned action by preparing the transfer list dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) by,,,,
virtue of which the services and as per Transfer Act, 2017, the profiles contained therein were determined. The petitioners’ submission",,,,
is that the respondents prior to preparing the impugned transfer list dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) were bound to consider,,,,
the categorization, assignment of gunank which was done by them as per statutory Rules of 2013 and the said exercise since has determined",,,,
the status of petitioner for performance of an administrative act, it ought to have been considered for an identical action being taken with the",,,,
enforcement of the new law, by way of Transfer Act, 2017. The submission is that by enforcing of Transfer Act, 2017, adopting and",,,,
classifying the institutions in Durgam; Ati Durgam and Sugam and consequently considering transfer based on services rendered accordingly,",,,,
cannot be nullified under the new parameters, thus enforced. For the redressal of the grievance, the petitioner, on 26.05.2018 (and such",,,,
other dates of representation in relation to various petitions), had submitted a representation before the Director, School Education, wherein, in",,,,
the representation thus submitted by him, he had sought the following reliefs:-Â",,,,
“1- 2008 ds dksVhdj.k gsrq xq.kkadksa dh x.ku fu;ekoyh la0&201(1)XXIV(01)2013 fnukad 21 ebZ 2013 mRRjk[k.M,,,,
f’k{kd ¼fo|ky;h f’k{kk½ izFke fu;qfDr izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dh tkuh gSA mijksDr fu;ekuqlkj fd;s x;s dksVhdj.k,,,,
20 ebZ 2013 rd izHkkoh le>s tk;saxs mlds ckn dksVhdj.k dh x.kuk ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA,,,,
2- egksn; iqu% fuosnu gS fd eSaus vizSy 1991 ls 14-5-2008 rd jk0b0dk0 dYthjoky ikSM+h x<+okyh esa izoDrk jlk;u ds in ij,,,,
dk;Z fd;kA egksn; ;g LFkku 20 ebZ 2013 rd nqxZe bZ iksVZy dh izfr layXu gSAâ€,,,,
12. As far as this argument of the petitioners is concerned, according to the argument of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, the learned counsel for State, he",,,,
justified the act for the reason being, if Section 2 of the Transfer Act of 2017 is taken into consideration, Section 2 of the Act gives the Act",,,,
an overriding effect to any other provisions applicable to the service conditions of an employee. What is surprising is that the Act does not,,,,
protect any action, which has taken under the Rules of 2013. Apart from it, since under Section 3 (Jha) of the Act the determination of the",,,,
Institution and its categorization has been independently contemplated, it goes without saying that such a categorization has to be done",,,,
independently under the provisions as applicable under the Act. The issue which has been agitated by the petitioners though it apparently,,,,
seems to be debatable but, in the absence of there being a protection savings clause for action taken under the Rules of 2013 prevailing under",,,,
Article 309 since the Act itself has been given an overriding effect, they cannot claim the benefit prima facie at this stage in the Writ",,,,
jurisdiction.,,,,
13. Invariably, all the representations submitted by the writ petitioners of each writ petition though the relief in it would be slightly different, but",,,,
widely it aimed that the classification of institutions, determinations of services of petitioners in the Sugam, Durgam and Ati Durgam done",,,,
under the exercise of statutory rules of 2013/14 framed under Article 309 may be protected and be made applicable and considered while,,,,
categorizing the petitioners’ institution and allocation of marks under the Act of 2017, and their placement be based on the consideration",,,,
of old categorization too.,,,,
14. In the representation for example thus submitted by one the petitioners he has prayed for that the services rendered by him from April, 1991",,,,
to 14.05.2008 in the Government Inter College, Kalzikhal, Pauri Garhwal, which happens to be a Category-D Institution should be taken into",,,,
consideration for the purposes of transferring him to a remote area under the Transfer Act of 2017.,,,,
Â,,,,
15. This Court feels that calling for a counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending would not serve the purpose of justice and considers,,,,
that it would be in the interest of justice that because the petitioners are facing a probable transfer based on the Transfer List dated,,,,
24.05.2018 impugned in the writ petition by virtue of which he has been included in list of proposed transfers from wherein his name appeared,,,,
in the list. The petitioner, at this stage, has confined his relief that in view of the provision contained under Section 22 (4) of the Transfer",,,,
Act contemplates, namely, statutory representation, the representation which has been submitted by him on 26.05.2018 may be directed to be",,,,
disposed of by the Director, School Education, which is pending before him.",,,,
16. In this case since the issue is pertaining to consideration of the period of services rendered earlier, and since the said action is not being",,,,
safeguarded, it would be an issue which goes to the very root of the controversy as to whether at all the services rendered by the petitioners",,,,
in the Durgam area under the Rules of 2013 could be excluded or considered under 2017 Act or not. For the said purpose since there is a,,,,
statutory remedy available to them under Section 22(4), it will always be open to invoke the said remedy before the competent Authority, but,",,,,
here the situation which has ultimately arrived at could also be protected after taking into consideration sub section 2 of Section 27 of the Act,",,,,
which provides with the removal of the difficulty clause.,,,,
Â,,,,
17. Looking to the relief sought at this stage since being innocuous in nature and couple with the fact that the tenure of service rendered by an,,,,
employee in the remote area always place an important role for considering the transfer of an employee from Sugam to Durgam Area or vice,,,,
versa under the Transfer Act, 2017, it would be in all fitness of things that the respondent no.3, be directed to dispose of the representation of",,,,
the petitioners on merits within four weeks from today and if necessary after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. At this,,,,
juncture, it is made clear that same would not be rejected on the ground of limitation for its filing as provided under Section 22(4) of the",,,,
Transfer Act, 2017.Â",,,,
 Â,,,,
18. Hence, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the direction to the Authority as constituted under sub section 2 of Section 27 along with",,,,
the superior Authority as provided under sub section 2 of Section 22 to consider the representation of the petitioners, which they may file",,,,
afresh within a period of ten days from today. The said representation would be considered by the Authority superior to the Authority passing,,,,
the impugned order by the reasoned order within a period of one month from today.,,,,
19. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.",,,,
20. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit in this case. The Director, School Education has to take",,,,
his independent decision. However, there would be no order as to costs.",,,,
