The Directorate of Education (DoE) of Delhi government on Monday put on hold its July 2 order relating to transfer of around 5,000 teachers who are continuing for more than 10 years in the same school.
The latest development came days after Delhi Education Minister Atishi asked Chief Secretary Naresh Kumar to immediately withdraw the DoE’s order of mass transfer of teachers.
The DoE said a Committee would be constituted to take a holistic view in the matter.
“Several representations have been received in the matter of the recent transfer orders issued by the Directorate of Education, pertaining to teachers who are continuing for more than 10 years in the same school. After going through the representations and listening to the delegations, the Competent Authority has decided to constitute an appropriate Committee, comprising representatives of all stakeholders and experts, so as to take a holistic, sympathetic and fair view in the matter,” read the order issued by the DoE, a copy of which was shared by Atishi on ‘X’.
It said, “Therefore, till further orders, the transfer orders of teachers issued on 2nd July are kept in abeyance. Postings of all such teachers are restored as on 1st July.”
On 4th July, Atishi in a note to the chief secretary said the DoE issued a circular dated 11th June regarding “online requests for transfer of teaching staff of the DoE”. Under clause 16 of this circular, all those teachers who have served for more than 10 years in the same schools were directed to compulsorily apply for transfer, failing which, they will be transferred to any school by the DoE.
The Education Minister stated that on 1st July, she clearly directed the Education Secretary to recall clause 16 and ensure that no teacher be transferred from any school only because she/he has completed more than 10 years in a particular school.
She said, however, on the night of 2nd July, a transfer order was issued by the DoE whereby nearly 5,000 teachers who did not apply for any transfer were transferred to other schools invoking this “contentious” clause.