2009 (4) TMI 914 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether non-compliance of one of the facet of Rule 6 of the Rules would be fatal to the application filed? Whether the NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon is in order and, therefore, was not justified in contending contrary to their own records?

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer order issued by the State Government.
2. Compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005.
3. The legitimacy of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) issued to both parties.
4. The procedural correctness and fairness of the decision-making process by the State Government and the Director of Education.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Transfer Order Issued by the State Government:
The appellants challenged the High Court's decision that quashed the State Government's order dated 09.01.2006, which permitted the transfer of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya from A.P.N. College, Basti to D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow. The High Court found that the State Government's decision was based on "considerations of irrelevant documents" and that the issuance of a second NOC for the same vacancy was inappropriate. The High Court also noted that the State Government should not have engaged in private correspondence with the Manager of D.A.V. Post Graduate College to make its decision.

2. Compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005:
The core issue was whether the transfer applications complied with Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005. Rule 6 mandates that the transfer application must be submitted through the legally constituted management along with the written consent of both managements. The High Court observed that Dr. Madhu Tandon's application, though submitted directly to the Director of Higher Education, did not invalidate her application as it substantially complied with the rules. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that non-compliance with procedural requirements designed to facilitate justice should not invalidate an application if the consequence of non-compliance is not explicitly provided.

3. Legitimacy of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) Issued to Both Parties:
The High Court found that the NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon was valid and was issued earlier than the NOC for Dr. Ram Deen Maurya. The High Court also noted that the original records from D.A.V. Post Graduate College did not inspire confidence and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, agreeing that the NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon was in order and that the management's contention against their own records was unjustified.

4. Procedural Correctness and Fairness of the Decision-Making Process:
The High Court criticized the State Government for engaging in private correspondence with the Manager of D.A.V. Post Graduate College and making a decision based on documents received behind the back of the incumbent. The Supreme Court concurred, emphasizing that the State Government should have made its decision based on the recommendations of the Director of Education or on its own with all relevant documents and considerations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found that the transfer application of Dr. Madhu Tandon was valid and that the procedural requirements under Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005, were substantially complied with. The Court also agreed with the High Court's finding that the NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon was legitimate and that the State Government's decision-making process was flawed. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →