DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 703 · Decided: 17-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2009] 6 S.C.R. 703 
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2625 of 2009) 
APRIL 17, 2009. 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.] 
A 
8 
· Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 
2005: r.6 - Routing the application through management is 
requirement under the rules, however its non-compliance C 
would not make application invalid - NOC issued to the writ 
petitioner by both the colleges was earlier in point of time than 
that of NOC granted to appellant - High ·court held that 
Manager of the College could not have issued second NOC 
against the same vacancy in favour of appellant and NOC 
D 
issued to writ petitioner was in order - The finding on facts by 
the High Court not perverse. 
Appellant and respondent No. 5 both wanted to be 
transferred to D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow 
E 
where a post of reader fell vacant. The State Government 
accorded permission for transfer of appellant. 
Respondent No. 5 filed writ petition before High Court, 
which was allowed Hence these appeals. 
It was contended for appellant that the Committee of F 
Management of D.A.V. Post Graduate College had passed 
the first resolution in favour of appellant on 04.04.2005 
and in pursuance thereof, No Objection Certificate was 
issued to the appellant on 03.05.2005 for his transfer to 
DAV College and, therefore, the State Govt. was justified G 
in granting permission for transfer and that the 
application filed by the respondent No.5 was ir.valid and 
nonest in law, since the same was sent directly to the 
Director of Education; that under the Uttar Pradesh Aided 
703 
H 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 
A College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005, the transfer 
application for single transfer from one College to the 
other requires to be submitted to the Director of 
Education, (Higher Education) through the Management 
constituted and approved by the University along with 
B the written consent of both the Management and since 
the application submitted by the contesting respondent 
was contrary to the statutory rules, the same is invalid 
and contrary to th~ rules; and that when the Rules 
prescribe a particular procedure to be followed for 
c submitting the application for single transfer, the same 
requires to be followed and any deviation would disentitle 
claim under the Rules. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the 
contempt petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow is 
"· 
affiliated to Lucknow University, Lucknow. The 
provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973, and the 
provisions of U.P. Higher Education Services 
E Commission Act, 1980 are made applicable to the 
teachers of the said College. By U.P. Ordinance No.14 of 
2004, Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is amended and a 
provision for the transfer of the teachers/lecturers from 
one aided degree College to another aided degree 
" • 
F College, on fulfillment of certain conditions is provided 
therein. The rules are framed to give effect to the 
amended provisions and they are known as the Uttar 
Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005. 
[Para 17] [717-C-E] 
G 
Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, 1936 PC 253 and Dhanajaya 
H 
Reddy v. State of Kamataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9, referred to. 
2. Rule 6 of the Rules provides the procedure for 
making an application by a teacher desirous of transfer 
~ 
_, 
,,\ 
-"'1,o 
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 705 
from one college to another college against the available 
A 
post for which salary is paid from the salary Payment 
Account. Under the rule, the transfer application for single 
or mutual transfer from one college to the other college 
requires to be submitted through the legally constituted 
management, along with the written consent of both the 
B 
management to the Director of Higher Education. [Para 
18] [718-B-D] 
Meera Sahni v. Governor of Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177, 
relied on. 
c 
3. If the rule is mandatory, then it is settled rule of 
interpretation, it must be strictly construed and followed 
and act done in breach thereof will be invalid. But if it is 
directory, the act will be valid although the non-
compliance may give rise to some other penalty if D 
provided by the Statute. It is often said that a mandatory 
enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but, a 
directory provision non-compliance of it, has been held 
in many cases as not affecting the validity of the act done 
in breach thereof. [Para 20] 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.