Hyderabad: The Hyderabad High Court on Monday declared that Rule 4 of the Telangana Teachers Transfer Rules 2018, which prescribes the district educational officers (DEO) of the erstwhile 10 districts as the competent authority to effect transfers of teachers in local body schools, is ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court said the post was no longer in existence after 31 DEOs were appointed to the newly formed districts.
The court recorded the statement of the state government that in the place of the erstwhile DEOs, the regional joint director of school education would be asked to issue transfer and posting orders on the basis of the erstwhile district as a unit.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Justice J. Uma Devi was disposing of a batch of writ petitions filed by teachers in government and local body schools. The bench directed the government to provide necessary guidance to the teachers who are unfamiliar with the web counselling process to enable them to exercise their options.
The bench said, “As resort to web counselling cannot, by itself, be said to violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, we find it difficult to agree with the submission, urged on behalf of the petitioners, that resort to the web counseling process for effecting transfers is illegal and unconstitutional.”
The Additional Advocate-General submitted that the process of web counselling had been resorted to only with a view to avoiding the possibility of officials being influenced by those who are now subjected to transfer to shift them to a place of their choice.
Referring to the contention of the petitioners that the officials were giving only 10 points for the spouse category instead of giving the first priority — which they called ‘class discrimination’ — the bench held that it was for the government to prescribe. Save for violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, no interference is called for, the bench said.
With regard to the contention of the teachers that it was the practice in vogue, for several years, that promotions are made before effecting transfers, the bench pointed out that no rule, either under Article 309 of the Constitution or under any statute, had been brought to its notice which obligates the government to always make promotions.
