# Arun Pratap Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 450
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-17
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-pratap-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54249
- **Pages:** 28

## Text

_Characters 0–39,921 of 94,168. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39921 for what follows._

450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 450
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 179 of 2026 & other connected cases

Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 issued for deployment of teachers to maintain the
pupil-teacher ratio in basic educational institution.
(2) Scope of judicial review in the matter of transfer.
(3) Applicability of principle of natural justice in the matter of transfer.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Head master/Assistant Teacher - Redeployment - Government Order dated
14.11.2025 was issued to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio - Validity of GO dated 14.11.2025 was
challenged on the ground of its being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution - GO dated 14.11.2025 was also attacked on the ground of its being tending to alter
the statutory provision - Permissibility :
Held : The obligation of the State to ensure uninterrupted education and compliance with the studentteacher ratio is a continuing one. If subsequent developments, such as change in enrolment, closure of
schools, or acute shortage of teachers, necessitate intervention, the State cannot be rendered powerless
merely on account of the passage of the month of July - The issuance of the Government Order in November
2025, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction, as it seeks to address pressing
administrative exigencies and to safeguard the larger interest of students - The Government Order dated
14.11.2025, issued for implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,
cannot be held to be arbitrary. [Para 88, 89 and 103]
Further held : The impugned Government Order neither amends nor overrides the statutory rules. On the
contrary, it supplements the Rules by facilitating their effective implementation. It is settled law that executive
instructions may validly fill in gaps where the rules are silent, provided they are not inconsistent with the
statutory framework. [Para 90]
(B) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope of judicial review -Transfer -
Interference, when not warranted :
Held : Transfer and adjustment of teachers is an incidence of service, and no employee can claim a vested
right to continue at a particular place of posting. In the absence of any pleading or proof of mala fides,
arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions, the Court finds no ground to interfere - The power to
transfer is ordinarily exercised in public interest and to meet administrative exigencies, and the courts, while
exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, do not sit in appeal over such decisions.
[Para 93 and 95]
(C) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Principle of natural justice - Transfer -
Doctrine of adopting fairness in administrative action - Applicability :
Held : Even in matters of transfer, though an incidence of service, an opportunity of representation ought to
be afforded where the action results in civil consequences or appears to operate arbitrarily. The doctrine of
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
fairness in administrative action mandates that affected teachers be made aware of the basis of their
proposed displacement, particularly when such transfers are undertaken en masse pursuant to executive
instructions - Each petitioner shall submit a separate and comprehensive representation/objection before the
District Level Committee constituted under the chairmanship of the District Magistrate within a period of one
week from today. Upon receipt of such objections, the Committee shall examine the same in light of the
applicable rules, the mandate of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and the
relevant Government Orders, and shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within one
month thereafter. [Para 118 and 145]
(D) Jurisprudence - Principle - Government Order/Executive Instruction vis-à-vis Statutory
framework - Held, Executive Instructions may validly fill in gaps where the rules are silent,
provided they are not inconsistent with the statutory framework. [Para 90] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Smt. Reena Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (1) ADJ 319 (LB); Pushkar Singh Chandel and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 (12) ADJ 375 (LB); Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014, State of
U.P. and others vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak and others (SC); Union of India and others vs. S.L. Abbas, 1993 AIR
2444 : (1993) 4 SCC 357; Sri Pubi Lombi vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others, 2024 INSC 200;
Shilpi Bose vs. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659; State of U.P. and others vs. Gobardhan Lal; (2004) 11
SCC 402; Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592; State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC
402; E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3; Federation of Railway Officers Association and
Others vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 289; State of Punjab and Others vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others,
(1998) 4 SCC 117; Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India and Others, (2002) 2 SCC 333; Kirloskar
Ferrous Industries Limited and another vs. Union of India and others, 2024 INSC 848; State of U.P. and
another vs. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714; Census Commissioner and others vs. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2
SCC 796; Rajendra Singh vs. State of U.P., (2009) 15 SCC 178; Major General J.K. Bansal vs. Union of India,
(2005) 7 SCC 227 - referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India - Article 21-A and Article 309; The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 - S. 25; Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 - Rule
21(2); National Education Policy, 2020.

List of Keywords
Redeployment, Pupil-students ratio, Surplus teacher, Deficient institution, Opportunity of hearing, Statutory
norms, Service jurisprudence, Policy for rationalization of teachers, Adjustment, Transfer, Procedural
irregularity, Education of adequate quality, Elementary education, mala fide, Fundamental rights,
Administrative need, Judicial review, Educational interest of children, Shortage of teachers, Arbitrary,
Discriminatory, Statutory obligation, Individual hardship, Uninterrupted education, Administrative exigency,
Punitive, Stigmatic, Administrative discretion of the employer, Inconvenience, Hardship, Judicial scrutiny,
Misapplication of the procedure, Doctrine of fairness, Opportunity of representation, Civil consequences,
Principle of natural justice, Procedural impropriety, Incident of service, Statutory infirmity, Factual infirmity.

Case Arising From
The Government Order dated 14.11.2025 and subsequent orders issued for the redeployment of teachers in
order to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.; Nipun Singh, Sr. Adv.; Tarun Agrawal, Sr. Adv.; Siddharth
Khare, Mohd. Yaseen, Navin Kumar Sharma, Shashank Shekhar Mishra, Prashant Mishra.
Advs. for the Respondents : Abhishek Srivastava, C.S.C., Rishi Kumar, A.C.S.C.; Shailendra Singh, S.C.; R.
P. Srivastava, S.C. Ashish Kumar Nagvanshi.
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. Written submissions provided by learned counsel for the parties are taken on record.

2. As a common cause of action has been agitated in all the writ petitions, the same are being
decided by a common judgment.

3. A composite counter affidavit has been filed in Writ-A No. 179 of 2026, addressing legal
issues rather than factual ones. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not propose to file a
rejoinder affidavit to the same, as the petitions are being decided solely on the legal issues.

4. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddharth Khare, Mr.
Mohd. Yaseen and Mr. Navin Kumar Sharma, Mr. Nipun Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. Shashank Shekhar Mishra, Mr. Tarun Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Prashant Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioners in the present case as well as connected
petitions, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel-VII assisted by Mr. Rishi
Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned Standing
Counsel, Mr. R. P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Ashish Kumar
Nagvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the records.

5. The aforesaid writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Order dated
14.11.2025, as well as the subsequent orders issued pursuant thereto.

6. The petitioners are working either as Assistant Teachers or Headmasters in all the writ
petitions. Since the petitions are being decided on legal issues, the details of the petitioners in this
batch of petitions are not being mentioned, except for the fact that the petitioners are either
Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools or Senior Basic Schools, or Headmasters in Junior
Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools.

7. The Government Order dated 14.11.2025 and the proceedings consequent thereto purport to
be for the redeployment of teachers in order to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio, in accordance with
the provisions of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (hereinafter
referred to as the '2009 Act').

8. In Writ-A Nos. 179 of 2026, 568 of 2026, and 787 of 2026, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that Section 19 of the 2009 Act specifies the norms and standards for a school
as mentioned in the Schedule to the said Act.

9. A perusal of the Schedule demonstrates that there is a minimum requirement of two
teachers in every institution, with additional teachers based on the student strength as specified in
the Schedule. In the case of a Junior Basic School having more than 150 students, there is a
requirement for one Headmaster, and for a Senior Basic School with a student strength of more
than 100, there is a requirement for one Headmaster.
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 38 of the 2009 Act confers power
upon the appropriate Government to frame rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. In
exercise of such powers, the Government of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Uttar Pradesh Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of
2011'). To effectuate the norms and standards specified under the 2009 Act, there is a requirement
for provisions to be made for the redeployment to be conducted every year in the month of July.
Rule 21(2) of the Rules of 2011 is extracted below:-

(21) Maintaining of Pupil-Teacher Ratio in each school (section-25)-

(1) The sanctioned strength of teachers in every school shall be notified by the District
Magistrate of the respective district. Such notification shall be displayed on the district website; the
sanctioned strength of teachers in a school shall be informed to the respective school and local
authority:

Provided that the District Magistrate, shall, within two months of such notification,
redeploy teachers of schools having strength in excess of the sanctioned strength prior to the
notification referred to in sub-rule (1).

(2) In order to maintain the specified pupil-teacher ratio, the District Magistrate
shall review the sanctioned strength of teacher in every school every year before the month of
July and redeploy the teachers as per requirement.

(3) For the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio, no teacher posted in a school
shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any noneducational purpose,
other than the decennial population census, disaster relief duties or duties relating to elections to the
local authority or the State Legislatures or Parliament.

(4) If any teacher found to be engaged in private tuition or private teaching, disciplinary
action will be taken under the service rules applicable to him or her."

11. The aforesaid Rule does not envisage a repeated exercise of the powers of redeployment
under Rule 21(2) for maintaining the specified pupil-teacher ratio. The District Magistrate is
required to review the sanctioned strength of teachers in every school each year before the month
of July and redeploy the teachers as per the requirement.

12. For the purpose of such annual redeployment, the exercise was conducted pursuant to the
Government Order dated 23.05.2025, followed by the orders of the concerned Basic Shiksha
Adhikari dated 01.07.2025. Thus, the exercise was carried out as required under Rule 21 of the
Rules of 2011 for maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio in each school.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a few teachers have already joined at their
transferred places pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2025. Similar exercise should also be
completed in all other districts of the State, including Chitrakoot.
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Surprisingly, a fresh exercise has been initiated by the Government Order dated
14.11.2025, under the pretext of implementing the provisions of the 2009 Act and the Rules of
2011 framed thereunder.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the two Government Orders, i.e. G.O.
dated 23.05.2025 and 14.11.2025, are contrasting. The Government Order dated 23.05.2025
contained detailed guidelines requiring full details to be uploaded on the option website, thereafter,
it called for the options from all surplus teachers willing to opt for institutions found to be deficient,
and on the basis of such information, the final orders were to be passed. In contrast, the present
Government Order dated 14.11.2025 is in a skeletal form, not specifying any procedure as set out
in the earlier Government Order. However, it indicates that the redeployment exercise was intended
to be undertaken for the academic session 2025-26.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Government Order dated
14.11.2025 has been construed in contrast to the Government Order dated 23.05.2025. The
procedure specified under the Government Order dated 23.05.2025 necessarily involved the
publication of a list of surplus institutions, a list of surplus teachers, a seniority list of teachers
treated as surplus, and a list of deficient institutions. It also provided that surplus teachers would
have the option to choose an institution of their preference from the list of deficient institutions.
Such options were to be exercised by the surplus teachers, and the same were to be scrutinized
accordingly. However, no such procedure has been specified in the Government Order dated
14.11.2025, which renders it unreasonable and arbitrary.

17. On account of the non-specification of any norms in the Government Order dated
14.11.2025, each district has, therefore, adopted its own procedure or norms for identifying surplus
teachers. The computation of surplus teachers may be based either on the persons who have put in
the longest length of stay in a given institution or on those who have most recently joined. There is
no clarity regarding the procedure followed by each district.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that no proceedings were undertaken in
any of the districts for nearly one and a half months following the issuance of the Government
Order dated 14.11.2025, and the impugned orders have been passed in each district on different
dates. There is no justification for such complete inaction on the part of the respondents during the
aforesaid period.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that Section 25 of the 2009 Act
specifies the provisions for maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio. It requires the appropriate
Government and local authorities to ensure that the pupil-teacher ratio, as specified in the Schedule,
is maintained in each school within three years from the date of commencement of the Act.

20. For the purpose of maintaining the pupil-teacher ratio, no teacher posted in schools shall
be transferred to any other school or deployed for any purpose other than those specified in Section
27 of the 2009 Act.
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there was no justification for
issuing the fresh Government Order dated 14.11.2025 and the consequential orders, when, pursuant
to the earlier Government Order dated 23.05.2025, the entire exercise for the session 2025-26 had
already been concluded, following the joining of Assistant Teachers and Headmasters, as the case
may be, on 01.07.2025 in all the districts.

22. He further submits that there existed no justification for conducting any such redeployment
exercise in the middle of the academic session, as the students' strength, which existed at the
commencement of the academic session, had substantially remained the same in December 2025.
Therefore, there existed no justification for issuing of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 and
the consequential orders. It is a settled principle of law that actions must be taken in accordance
with the prescribed procedure, and any deviation therefrom vitiates the action itself.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Government Order dated
14.11.2025, which was skeletal in nature and did not specify the details of the procedure to be
followed, created a chaotic situation in each district, as each district followed its own procedure.

24. Another aspect of the controversy is that a large number of Headmasters have been treated
as surplus in Junior Basic Schools and Senior Basic Schools where the students' strength is less
than 150 and 100, respectively. However, such reasoning is illogical and contrary to departmental
circulars as well as the orders previously passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Lucknow Bench of
this Court in Writ-A No. 7241 of 2024 (Seema Jaiswal and others vs. State of U.P. and others).

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that these are individual grievances of
the petitioners, which have not been addressed, as no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided
and no option was made available, as required, prior to the passing of the impugned orders and the
consequential orders.

26. As no detailed counter affidavit has been filed in response to the individual grievances
mentioned in the bunch of petitions, the same have not been addressed before this Court. However,
an opportunity of hearing is required to be afforded to the petitioners to present their individual
grievances, which affect them in any manner, rendering the impugned orders unreasonable and
arbitrary.

27. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-A No. 564 of 2026 has challenged the illegality
and validity of the impugned posting order dated 13.12.2025. The impugned exercise constitutes
the third round of adjustment undertaken by the respondents during the same academic session. The
earlier two rounds have already resulted in a spate of writ petitions; therefore, the present case
should be examined in the backdrop of this continuing administrative history.

28. The passing of the impugned order demonstrates a systemic administrative failure in
implementing the statutory norms governing the deployment of teachers, which has persisted
despite repeated judicial intervention.
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

29. The petitioners, who are duly appointed as Assistant Teachers working in Primary and
Upper Primary Schools, belong to a district-level cadre, and their service conditions are governed
by the U.P. Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981, read with the U.P. Basic Education
(Teachers) (Posting ) Rules, 2008.

30. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that, once service conditions are governed
by statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot be altered,
supplanted, or overridden by executive instructions or administrative convenience. This means that
any transfer or adjustment dehors the statutory framework is liable to be interdicted.

31. The controversy arose when the Government Order dated 23.05.2025 was issued, whereby
the State-respondents initiated a policy for the rationalization of teachers to ensure compliance with
Section 25 of the 2009 Act. The policy was followed by guidelines dated 13.06.2025 and
16.06.2025, and a list of surplus and deficit schools was published on 24.06.2025.

32. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondents failed to adhere to the statutory
mechanism prescribed under Section 25 of the 2009 Act read with Rule 21 of the Rules of 2011.
The said rule mandates that the District Magistrate shall annually determine the sanctioned strength
of teachers in each school, having regard to the pupil-teacher ratio prescribed in the Schedule to the
Act. Thus, the entire exercise was in violation of the statutory requirement and is therefore bad in
law.

33. The first round of transfer orders culminated in the list dated 30.06.2025, which was
prepared without regard to the statutory norms, resulting in several schools being rendered as
solitary-teacher schools. This was in direct violation of Section 25 of the 2009 Act, which mandates
the maintenance of minimum teacher strength, and also defeated the very object sought to be
achieved by the policy.

34. Aggrieved by the aforesaid actions, two distinct sets of teachers approached this Court: (i)
teachers whose schools were rendered solitary as a result of the impugned adjustments; and (ii)
teachers who were transferred pursuant to the said list and were subsequently sought to be reverted.

35. A batch of writ petitions, including Writ-A No. 16303 of 2025, is pending adjudication.
The present Government Order dated 14.11.2025 has given rise to the third round of litigation.

36. By the aforesaid Government Order, the State Government directed a fresh exercise based
on U-DISE+ data through a District-Level Committee. While the said Government Order sought to
correct earlier mistakes, it conspicuously failed to prescribe any policy or guideline for the
identification of surplus teachers within a school. Thus, the absence of such a policy is not a mere
procedural irregularity but constitutes substantive illegality, as it confers unguided discretion upon
subordinate authorities.

37. Pursuant to the letter dated 19.11.2025 issued by the concerned respondents, they
proceeded to determine surplus schools in the District, which was illegal as no proper procedure
was followed.
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457

38. In the aforesaid procedure, the Shiksha Mitras and contractual instructors were included as
regular teachers while determining surplus schools in the districts. As already submitted, there was
no criteria for the selection of surplus teachers; consequently, each district followed its own
procedure, which created a chaotic situation.

39. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, in the absence of any guidelines to
be followed for the implementation of the 2009 Act to maintain the student-teacher ratio, the earlier
principle of treating the junior-most teacher as surplus, i.e., 'Last Come, First Go,' was also not to
be followed, as it has been held to have no statutory backing. The aforesaid has been held in the
case of Smt. Reena Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2019 (1) ADJ
319 (LB)."

40. The said position has been reiterated in the case of Pushkar Singh Chandel and others
vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2024 (12) ADJ 375 (LB), wherein this Court held that
the inclusion of Shiksha Mitras for determining surplus strength of the teachers and the mechanical
displacement of junior teachers is constitutionally impermissible. Thus, the impugned posting order
dated 31.12.2025 is directly in the teeth of the aforesaid binding precedents.

41. The issuance of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025, instead of rectifying the errors
committed in the earlier rounds, has created a more precarious situation, which cannot be addressed
without inviting objections from the petitioners. Such selective action amounts to hostile
discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Being in contravention of
statutory provisions, binding judicial precedents, and constitutional guarantees, it cannot be
sustained in law and warrants interference by this Court.

42. Learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ-A No.707 of 2026 submits that the petitioners
are Assistant Teachers serving in Primary, Upper Primary and Composite Schools and have
challenged the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 as well as transfer order dated 31.12.2025 with
the following grounds:-

(a) Transfers effected without counseling, without inviting options or preferences and without
publication of any consolidated list of surplus or transferred teachers. Settled policy of transfers
based on seniority abandoned.

(b) New criterion of length of stay introduced and applied mechanically.

(c) Teachers appointed in English Medium Schools after undergoing a rigorous selection
process displaced solely on the basis of length of stay.

(d) Senior teachers transferred to far-off locations despite availability of nearby schools.

(e) Objections invited only after transfer orders had already been finalized and uploaded,
rendering the opportunity illusory.

(f) Thus the impugned exercise suffers from complete non-application of mind and is ex-facie
arbitrary.

(g) The transfers are in violation of 2009 Act as well as Rules of 2011 as mandatory pupilteacher ratio and subject-teacher ratios have been disturbed.

(h) Mechanical reliance on length of stay as the sole criterion in irrational and contrary to
statutory staffing requirements.
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i) Displacement of trained English Medium teachers defeats the very object of establishing
English Medium Schools and adversely affects educational standards.

(j) Entire process lacks transparency, with no public disclosure of criteria or consolidated date,
violating principles of fairness and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(k) Post-decisional invitation of objections does not cure the illegality and amounts to a mere
formality.

43. On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the impugned government order dated 14.11.2025 as well as consequential
transfer order dated 31.12.2025 are liable to be quashed.

44. On the other hand, Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, learned Chief Standing Counsel VIIth
assisted by Mr. Ashish Kumar Nagwanshi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents submits that the 2009 Act itself provides that the said Act has been enacted by
the Parliament to provide for free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14
years.

45. Article 21A of the Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to free and
compulsory education for all children aged 6 to 14 years, and this right is further reinforced by the
2009 Act. Specifically, Section 25 of the Act places an obligation on the State to ensure an
adequate Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR), thus mandating that the government not only to provide
access to education but also guarantees the quality of education by ensuring sufficient and trained
teachers. As such, the State is constitutionally and statutorily bound to fulfill its duty by addressing
teacher shortages, maintaining infrastructure, and ensuring that every child receives an education of
adequate quality, with the judiciary playing a key role in enforcing these rights when the state fails
to do so.

46. It would be appropriate to refer to Sections 3 and 8 of the 2009 Act, which provides as
follows:-

"3. Right of child to free and compulsory education.- [(1) Every child of the age of six
to fourteen years, including a child referred to in clause (d) or clause (e) of section 2, shall have the
right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till the completion of his or her
elementary education.]

(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or
charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary
education.

[(3) A child with disability referred to in sub-clause (A) of clause (ee) of section 2 shall,
without prejudice to the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection
of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996), and a child referred to in sub-clauses (B)
and (C) of clause (ee) of section 2, have the same rights to pursue free and compulsory elementary
education which children with disabilities have under the provisions of Chapter V of the Persons
with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995:

Provided that a child with "multiple disabilities" referred to in clause (h) and a child with
"severe disability" referred to in clause (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999)
may also have the right to opt for home-based education.]

8. Duties of appropriate Government.-The appropriate Government shall-

(a) provide free and compulsory elementary education to every child:

Provided that where a child is admitted by his or her parents or guardian, as the case may
be, in a school other than a school established, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds
provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government or a local authority, such child or his
or her parents or guardian, as the case may be, shall not be entitled to make a claim for
reimbursement of expenditure incurred on elementary education of the child in such other school.

Explanation.-The term "compulsory education" means obligation of the appropriate
Government to-

(i) provide free elementary education to every child of the age of six to fourteen years;
and

(ii) ensure compulsory admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by
every child of the age of six to fourteen years;

(b) ensure availability of a neighbourhood school as specified in section 6;

(c) ensure that the child belonging to weaker section and the child belonging to
disadvantaged group are not discriminated against and prevented from pursuing and completing
elementary education on any grounds;

(d) provide infrastructure including school building, teaching staff and learning
equipment;

(e) provide special training facility specified in section 4;

(f) ensure and monitor admission, attendance and completion of elementary education by
every child;

(g) ensure good quality elementary education conforming to the standards and norms
specified in the Schedule;

(h) ensure timely prescribing of curriculum and courses of study for elementary
education; and

(i) provide training facility for teachers.

47. It would also be appropriate to refer to Sections 25 of the 2009 Act, which provides as
follows:-

"25. Pupil-Teacher Ratio.--(1) [Within three years] from the date of commencement of
this Act, the appropriate Government and the local authority shall ensure that the Pupil-Teacher
Ratio, as specified in the Schedule, is maintained in each school.

(2) For the purpose of maintaining the Pupil-Teacher Ratio under sub-section (1), no
teacher posted in a school shall be made to serve in any other school or office or deployed for any
non-educational purpose, other than those specified in section 27."

48. Under Section 3 of the Right to Education Act, 2009, every child between the ages of 6 to
14 years has the right to free and compulsory education. This right ensures that all children in this
age group are entitled to access quality elementary education. The Pupil-Teacher Ratio has been
specified in the Schedule, which has been annexed at Page 43 of the writ petition.
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

49. Any rule, regulation, or government order that obstructs or hampers the implementation of
the Right to Education Act, 2009, or the constitutional mandate under Article 21A of the
Constitution of India, shall not be given effect to by the State Government, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 4347-4375 of 2014 (State of U.P. and others vs.
Shiv Kumar Pathak and others). Paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-

"16. There is no manner of doubt that the NCTE, acting as an 'academic authority' under
Section 23 of the RTE Act, under the Notification dated 31st March, 2010 issued by the Central
Government as well as under Sections 12 and 12A of the NCTE Act, was competent to issue
Notifications dated 23 rd August, 2010 and 11th February, 2011. The State Government was under
obligation to act as per the said notifications and not to give effect to any contrary rule. However,
since NCTE itself has taken the stand that notification dated 11 th February, 2011 with regard to
the weightage to be given to the marks obtained in TET is not mandatory which is also a possible
interpretation, the view of the High Court in quashing the 15 th Amendment to the 1981 Rules has
to be interfered with. Accordingly, while we uphold the view that qualifications prescribed by the
NCTE are binding, requirement of weightage to TET marks is not a mandatory requirement."

50. Therefore, any claim of the teachers which comes in the way of maintaining pupil teacher
ratio of at least two teachers in every school would be hit by Section 25 of the RTE Act, 2009.

51. He further submits that if the State Government in order to maintain pupil teacher ratio in
terms of Section 25 of the RTE Act of 2009 had issued a Government Order dated 14.11.2025
whereby in School where either there is no Teacher or a single Teacher then in that case, the only
option which is left with the District Level Committee is to transfer/adjust the (surplus or higher in
numbers) Teachers available in one Institution/School to a School where either there is no Teacher
or there is only one Teacher as in case the only teacher suffers from any aliment and unable to
attend the School then the students should not suffer due to unavailability of teachers.

52. He further submits that the State Government vide Government Order dated 14.11.2025
has given power to a District Level Committee to examine time to time the necessity of a school
and to provide teachers in a school where there is no teacher or there is only one teacher as there
may be a situation throughout the year that some of the Teachers may retire, promoted, go on leave,
suspended due to any misconduct etc., therefore, to deal with all such situations, the District Level
Committee would be the competent authority to deal with the said situation and in order to achieve
the goal of pupil teacher ratio, they may transfer a teacher from a school that has surplus teachers to
a school where there is either no teacher or only one teacher, therefore, such transfer would be
based on an administrative decision and the same being exigency of service, it is not proper to
challenge any such decision of District Level Committee unless the Hon'ble Court finds that the
order is based on a mala fide and since all these transfer orders are issued by the District Level
Committee for maintaining pupil teacher ratio in schools in terms of Section 25 of the RTE Act,
2009 then any Rule, Regulation, Government Order or circular which would come in the way of
said transfer orders shall be hit by Section 25 of the RTE Act, 2009 and the fundamental right of
children as enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
2 All. Arun Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461

53. He further submits that if under said transfer/adjustment, a Teacher is posted within the
same District then in that case they cannot claim that they have got an indefeasible right to continue
in one School because the purpose of appointment of Teachers in Primary and Upper Primary
Schools is to maintain pupil teacher ratio for achieving the aim and object of the RTE Act, 2009 i.e.
to provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years.

54. He further submits that the State Government in the Government Order dated 14.11.2025
has put no conditions upon the District Level Committee regarding teacher who will be transferred
because there may be a circumstance where Science and Mathematics Teacher may be senior in
Upper Primary School but there are two teacher for teaching Languages and are junior to the
Science Teacher in that case the District Level Committee will obviously transfer Teacher teaching
Languages, therefore, there cannot be a universal formula to deal with those situations and as per
administrative grounds/needs of the children, the District Level Committee is the best authority to
determine/examine these issues before making transfers and therefore, the State Government in its
wisdom has given a discretion to the District Level Committee to examine the ground situations
and pass appropriate orders.

55. So far as any ground of resistance by the Teachers taking plea of mid-session is concerned,
it is most respectfully submitted that if a pupil teacher ratio is not maintained in a school where
there is no teacher or there is only one teacher then it will adversely affect the rights of the children
to get free and compulsory education under the Act, 2009 and it would be a violation of
fundamental right of the children as enshrined under Article 21A of the Constitution of India,
therefore, any restrictions which come in the way of maintaining pupil teacher ratio would be hit by
Article 21A read with Section 25 of the Act of 2009 and the right children of getting free and
compulsory education would always supersede the rights of the Teachers to remain posted in a
School and hence the Government Order dated 14.11.2205 issued by the State Government in order
to achieve the aim of maintaining the pupil teacher ratio cannot be challenged by the Teachers on
artificial grounds. The seniority of the Teachers shall not get affected by any transfer/adjustment
which will made in terms of government order dated 14.11.2025.

56. He further submits that the Committee which has been constituted in terms of Government
Order dated 14.11.2025 is to be headed by District Magistrate along with three other members who
will take care of the interest of the Teachers also and in absence of any allegations of mala fide
against the said committee, a transfer which is an incidence of service cannot be challenged by the
petitioners on artificial grounds, therefore, claim of the petitioners against the said transfer/posting
is in teeth of Section-25 of the Act, 2009 read with Article 21A of the Constitution of India and the
same is liable to be rejected by this Court.

57.