# Rachana & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 844
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-18
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 10260 of 2023
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rachana-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51493
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Basic Shiksha Parishad
Teachers - Inter-District / Mutual Transfer -
G.O.
dated
02.06.2023
-
Clause
4
-
Interpretation.

Clause
4
limits
inter-district
transfers
to
maximum 10% of teachers working as on
30.04.2023
vis-à-vis
sanctioned
posts
-
Calculation
made
by
considering
both
sanctioned strength and actual working strength
- If working strength exceeds sanctioned posts,
incoming transfer may be declared "zero"
2 All. Rachana & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
though outgoing transfer permitted - Not
arbitrary, but in tune with policy language.
B. Transfer Policy - Judicial Review - Scope.

Transfer is not a vested right - Teachers
appointed district-wise with open eyes - Interdistrict transfer is change of cadre, not a matter
of right - Court can interfere with transfer policy
only if found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or
contrary to law - Policy framed on rational
criteria of sanctioned vis-à-vis working strength
held valid.

Held : Para 13 - St.'s decision to exclude certain
districts (where teachers are surplus) from
incoming transfers and to allow only outgoing
transfers, based on clause 4 of transfer policy
dated 02.06.2023, cannot be termed arbitrary -
No interference warranted.

All writ petitions dismissed. No costs.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

844 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement.

Provided that :-

(a)
such
departmental
proceedings, if not instituted while the
officer was on duty either before retirement
or during re-employment-

(i) Shall not be instituted with the
sanction of the Governor,

(ii) shall be in respect of event
which took place not more than four years
before the institution of such proceedings,
and"

It is thus clear that since matter relates
to the event which took place four years
prior to the retirement of the petitioner
which is an undisputed fact as accepted by
Counsel for respondents, so no action can
be taken against the petitioner and inquiry
cannot be initiated hence, there is no
occasion to consider the matter relating to
grant of any approval under Regulation
351-A of C.S.R.

And lastly, it is found that there exists
no impediment in making the payment of
post retiral benefits to the petitioner.

16. After retirement, an employee is
dependent upon his/her post retiral dues but
in place of getting the same the petitioner
had been compelled by the arbitrary
action of the respondents to approach
this Court time and again. In place of
getting any dues the petitioner is
spending the cost of litigation from
his life long savings. The petitioner
has been deprived from getting his
lawful claim due to wrong actions,
inaction
and
non
action
by
the
authorities at different stages which is
making the petitioner to suffer great
hardship.

17. In view of the discussions made
hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

18. Respondent no. 1 is directed to
make payment of all post retiral dues to the
petitioner including computation of pension
within a period of two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order. In case, the payment is not made in
the period mentioned hereinabove, the
respondents will liable to pay the simple
interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of
retirement till actual payment is made.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 844
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 10260 of 2023
With
Writ - A No. 10256 of 2023
and other connected cases

Rachana & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri Rishabh
Srivastava, Sri H.N. Singh (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Archana Singh

A. Service Law - Basic Shiksha Parishad
Teachers - Inter-District / Mutual Transfer -
G.O.
dated
02.06.2023
-
Clause
4
-
Interpretation.

Clause
4
limits
inter-district
transfers
to
maximum 10% of teachers working as on
30.04.2023
vis-à-vis
sanctioned
posts
-
Calculation
made
by
considering
both
sanctioned strength and actual working strength
- If working strength exceeds sanctioned posts,
incoming transfer may be declared "zero"
2 All. Rachana & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
though outgoing transfer permitted - Not
arbitrary, but in tune with policy language.
B. Transfer Policy - Judicial Review - Scope.

Transfer is not a vested right - Teachers
appointed district-wise with open eyes - Interdistrict transfer is change of cadre, not a matter
of right - Court can interfere with transfer policy
only if found to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or
contrary to law - Policy framed on rational
criteria of sanctioned vis-à-vis working strength
held valid.

Held : Para 13 - St.'s decision to exclude certain
districts (where teachers are surplus) from
incoming transfers and to allow only outgoing
transfers, based on clause 4 of transfer policy
dated 02.06.2023, cannot be termed arbitrary -
No interference warranted.

All writ petitions dismissed. No costs.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Shraddha Yadav Vs St. of U.P. (Allahabad HC,
2024 : AHC : 4085)

2. Devesh Sharma Vs U.O.I., 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 985

3. Satyadev Bagur Vs St. of Raj., (2022) 5 SCC
324

4. Krishnan Kakkanath Vs St. of Kerala, (1997) 9
SCC 495

5. Sher Singh Vs U.O.I., (1995) 6 SCC 515

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present bunch of writ
petitions, interpretation of clause 4 of a
transfer policy for inter district and mutual
transfer issued by a government order dated
02.06.2023 for teachers working in school
run by Basic Shiksha Parishad is under
consideration.
The
said
clause
is
reproduced below -:

"जनपद में स्वीकृत पद के सापेक्ष
नदनाींक ३० अप्रैल २०२३ तक कायदरत अध्यापकोीं
की सींख्या के १० प्रनतशत की अनधकतम सीमा
तक अींतजदनपदीय स्थानाींतरण नकये जायेंगे।
नकसी जनपद से स्थानाींतररत िोकर जाने तथा
आने िाले नशक्षक एिीं नशनक्षका की अनधकतम
सीमा १० प्रनतशत िोगी।"

2. Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned
Advocate for petitioners along with S/Sri
Seemant Singh, Rakesh Kumar Pandey,
Manoj Kumar Singh, K.R. Singh, Sikhar
Trivedi, Neeraj Shukla, Kamal Kumar
Kesharwani, O.P.S. Rathore, Vibhu Rai,
Navin Kumar Sharma, Pratik Chandra,
Man Bahadur Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh,
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Shashi Kant Mishra,
Prathamesh Upadhyay and Suresh Singh
for
petitioners
have
submitted
that
petitioners
have
been
denied
from
consideration of their applications to
transfer at desired district on the ground
that there are no vacancy for incoming
transfer. Crux of their argument is that
interpretation
and
determination
of
calculation of 10% of vacancy and to
declare zero vacancy for incoming transfer
in certain districts is not only contrary to
the object of transfer policy but based on
incorrect interpretation of referred clause
also.

3. Learned Senior Advocate has
further submitted that in a district, if
teachers are working more than sanctioned
strength, they are also included for
determination of 10% of posts available for
transfer
and
accordingly,
State
has
calculated that since there are already
surplus teachers, therefore, there will be no
incoming transfer but they have allowed
outgoing transfer. In a way they have tried
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to accommodate illegal appointment above
than sanctioned posts.

4. Above arguments have been
opposed by Sri Shashi Prakash Singh,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
along with S/Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava
and Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing
Counsel for State and Ms. Archana Singh,
learned counsel appearing for Board of
Basic Education, U.P. at Allahabad and
they have supported the calculation and
stressed upon a word used in the above
referred clause i.e. "जनपद में स्वीकृत पद के
सापेक्ष नदनाींक ३० अप्रैल २०२३ तक कायदरत
अध्यापकोीं" that both aspects have to be
taken into consideration i.e. number of
sanctioned posts and number of teachers
working in a district and they have
submitted that there is no infirmity in the
calculation.

5. Before adverting to the rival
submissions, for example the calculation in
regard to primary rural School where in 11
districts, incoming transfer has been
declared as zero is mentioned hereinafter-:

Sl.
N
o.
Distric
t
PRIMARY SCHOOL RURAL

Assistant
Teacher

10%
of
Wor
king
at
In
co
mi
ng

Outgoi
ng

Sa
nc
tio
n
W
or
ki
ng
V
a
c
a
n
t

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
BAGH
PAT
15
76
16
40
-
6
4
164
0
164
2
CHITR
AKOO
T
21
81
22
90
-
1
0
9
229
0
229
3
G.B.
13
14
-
142
0
142
NAGA
R
67
24
5
7
4
GHAZ
IABA
D
89
0
11
83
-
2
9
3
118
0
118
5
HAPU
R
11
78
12
00
-
2
2
120
0
120
6
KANN
AUJ
30
54
33
74
-
3
2
0
337
0
337
7

KANP
UR
NAGA
R
30
81

31
10

-
2
9

311

0

311

8
LUCK
NOW
25
31
26
77
-
1
4
6
268
0
268
9
MAU
26
70
28
80
-
2
1
0
288
0
288
10
MEER
UT
24
90
25
05
-
1
5
251
0
251
11

MUZA
FFAR-
NAGA
R
25
09
25
65
-
5
6
257
0
257

6. It will be apposite to refer the law
in regard to interference with policy
decision of a State as held by this Court in
a recent judgement in the case of
Shraddha Yadav and 6 others vs. State
of U.P. and 10 others, Neutral Citation
No.
2024:AHC:4085
and
relevant
paragraph from 15 to 20 are quoted below-:

"१५. नशक्षकोीं ि नशनक्षकाओीं के िषद
२०२३-२०२४ की अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण नीनत को उत्तर प्रदेश शासन के
शासनादेश नदनाूँक ०२, जून, २०२३ द्वारा
ननधादररत की गई। इसके खण्ड १६, १७ ि १८ पूिद
में उल्लेक्तखत नकये जा चुके ि , के अनुसार
पररषद को इस स्थानान्तरण नीनत के ' तकनीकी
चरण एिीं प्रनिया के ननधादरण का दानयत्व सौपा
गया और उसी िम में, और स्थानान्तरण नीनत
के िम में अग्रतर कायदिािी िेतु सनचि, उ.प्र.
2 All. Rachana & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद ने पररपत्र नदनाींक
१६.०६.२०२३ ि २८.०६.२०२३ को ननगदत नकया,
नजसके अनुसार ऑनलाइन आिेदन के सत्यापन
ि परीक्षण की प्रनिया को ननधादररत नकया। इन
पररपत्रोीं के माध्यम से एकल अनर्र्ािक,
नदव्याींगता, असाध्य या गींर्ीर रोग, सरकारी सेिा
का लार्, ननलम्बन की क्तस्थनत आनद के निषय में
प्रािधान बनाये गये। इसी िम में पररपत्र नदनाींक
२८.०६.२०२३ द्वारा अन्तजदनपदीय स्थानान्तरण
प्रनिया के अन्तगदत स्थानान्तररत नशक्षक एिीं
नशनक्षका (१६,१६४ नशक्षक एिीं नशनक्षका) को
कायदमुक्त नकये जानें की कायदिािी की, निस्तृत
प्रनिया को र्ी ननधादररत नकया। इसी पररपत्र के
खण्ड (५) को ननरस्त करने की प्राथदना
यानचकाकतादगण ने की िै। उक्त खण्ड पुनैंः ननम्न
उल्लेक्तखत नकया जा रिा िैैंः-

"५. प्रोन्ननत पद पर कायदरत नशक्षक
एिीं नशनक्षका के स्थानान्तररत जनपद में बैच की
पदोन्ननत िषद/मौनलक ननयुक्तक्त नतनथ के आधार
पर कायदमुक्त करने की कायदिािी की जायेगी।"

१६. स्थानान्तरण नीनत के खण्ड १६,
१७ ि १८ के अन्तिदस्तु से स्पि िै, जो पररषद के
उक्त पररपत्रोीं को, जो उक्त नीनत के ' तकनीकी
चरण ि प्रनिया के ननधादरण', इसकी समय
साररणी ि कायदमुक्त कराने के सम्बन्ध में िै,
ननगदत करने के नलए स्पि रूप से पररषद के
सनचि को अनधकृत करते िै। अतैंः उक्त
पररपत्रोीं को ननगदत करने का अनधकार सनचि,
उ.प्र. बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद को पूणद रूप से था।
अतैंः पररपत्र िैधाननक िै ि निनधक रूप से
सींधारणीय र्ी िै। यि पररपत्र स्थानान्तरण नीनत
के िम में उसके कायदिािन के नलए िै, न नक
उसकी प्रकृनत के निरोध में ननगदत नकये गये िै।
स्पिता ि सींदर्द के नलए स्थानान्तरण नीनत के
खण्ड १६, १७ ि १८ पुनैंः ननम्न उल्लेक्तखत नकये
जा रिे िैैंः-

"(१६) अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण के नलए ननगदत शासनादेश के
अनुसार उ०प्र० बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद द्वारा
अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक स्थानान्तरण के
तकनीकी चरण एिीं प्रनिया का ननधादरण नकया
जायेगा तथा शासनादेश के िम में अग्रतर
कायदिािी की जायेगी।

(१७) अन्तजदनपदीय स्थानान्तरण िेतु
समय-साररणी सनचि, बेनसक नशक्षा पररषद द्वारा
अपने स्तर से पृथक से ननगदत की जायेगी।

(१८) अन्तजदनपदीय एिीं पारस्पररक
स्थानान्तरण के उपरान्त नशक्षक/नशनक्षका को
कायदमुक्त करने तथा कायदर्ार ग्रिण करने की
कायदिािी मध्य शैनक्षक सत्र में निीीं की जायेगी।
नशक्षक/नशनक्षका को कायदमुक्त करने तथा
कायदर्ार ग्रिण करने की कायदिािी अिकाश के
दौरान िी की जायेगी।"

१७. अब न्यायालय को यि ननधादररत
करना िै नक पररपत्र नदनाूँक २८.०६.२०२३ के
खण्ड (५) में उल्लेक्तखत 'स्थानान्तररत जनपद में
बैच की पदोन्ननत िषद/मौनलक ननयुक्तक्त नतनथ के
आधार पर' कायदमुक्त करने की कायदिािी का
कोई न्यायोनचत कारण िै अथिा निी। यिाीं यि
ध्यान रखना िोगा नक यानचकाकतादगण के सींबींध
में अींतजदनपदीय स्थानान्तरण का आदेश पाररत
िो गया था परन्तु उपरोक्त खण्ड (५) के कारण
उनको कायदमुक्त निीीं नकया गया िै।

१८. उपरोक्त िनणदत खण्ड (५) के
अन्तैंःिस्तु के मात्र पररशीलन से स्पिता प्रतीत
निी िोती िै परन्तु पररषद के द्वारा दायर
प्रनतउत्तर पत्र ि उसके निद्वान अनधिक्ता के
कथन से स्पिता प्रतीत िोती िै, नक अगर
यानचकाकतादगण जो पदोन्ननत पद पर िै
स्थानान्तररत जनपद, जिाीं उनके ब च के
नशक्षकोीं की पदोन्ननत निी हुयी िै, कायदर्ार
ग्रिण कराया जाता िै तो िो अपने सींिगद मे
ननम्नतम िररष्ठता पर रिेंगे। नफर र्ी िो उनके
ब च में कायदरत नशक्षक/नशनक्षका नजनको
पदोन्ननत निीीं की गई िै, से िररष्ठ िो जायेंगे और
उनके पदोन्ननत िोने के बाद र्ी यानचकाकतादगण
िी िररष्ठ रिेंगे। नजससे असमींजसता की क्तस्थनत
उत्पन्न िो जायेगी, चािे िररष्ठता सूची मूल जनपद
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
के स्तर पर िी क्यो न िो। यि क्तस्थनत सिकमी
को साथ कायद करने के नलए प्रनतकूल िोगी।
उपरोक्त िनणदत कारण एक नीनतयुक्त कारण िै
जो उपरोक्त खण्ड (५) को िैधाननकता प्रदान
करता िै। अगर पररषद उक्त खण्ड (५) के
अऩ्तैंःिस्तु में और स्पिता ला पाते तो अच्छा
िोता। अनग्रम स्थानान्तरण नीनत में स्पिता का
ध्यान रखना चानिये।

१९. मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय के एक
निीन ननणदय जो देवेश शर्मा प्रति भमरि संघ व
अन्यः २०२३ एस.सी.सी. ऑनलमइन एस.सी.
९८५, के प्रकरण में पाररत नकया गया िै, में पुनैंः
यि प्रनतपानदत नकया नकैंः-

"७३. िमारे मक्तस्तष्क में नननित रूप
से कोई सींदेि निी िै, नक साधारणतैंः राज्य के
नीनतगत ननणदयोीं में सींिैधाननक न्यायालयोीं द्वारा
उसके पुनैंः ननरीक्षण अनधकारो के अींतगदत
िस्ताक्षेप निीीं नकया जा सकता िै। इसी के साथ
अगर नीनतगत ननणदय स्वयीं में िी निनध के निरूर्द्
और िो मनमाना ि तकदिीन िो तो पुनैंःननरीक्षण
के अनधकार का उपयोग करना िी चानिये।"

२०. मा० उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा
एक अन्य प्रकरण सत्यदेव बमगुर प्रति
रमजस्थमन शमसन व अन्य (२०२२)५
एस.सी.सी. ३२४, के प्रकरण मे पूिद मे
पाररत कृष्णन्न कक्कनमथ प्रति केरल
रमज्यः (१९९७)९ एस.सी.सी. ४९५ ि शेर
तसंह
प्रति
भमरि
संघः
(१९९५)६
एस.सी.सी. ५१५ के ननणदयोीं का सींदर्द लेते
हुए यि ननणीत नकया नकैंः-

"१५.
यि
अनतसामान्य
िै
नक
न्यायालय नीनतगत मामलो में िस्तक्षेप करने में
मन्द रिेंगे, जब तक नक नीनत स्पि रूप से
पक्षपाती और मनमानी न स्थानपत िो जाये। यि
न्यायालय राज्य की नीनतगत ननणदय में िस्तक्षेप
निी करेगा, जब राज्य यि इींनगत कर सके नक
नीनत के कायादििन में युक्तक्तयुक्त अींतर िै और
िो युक्तक्तयुक्त अींतर, उसके उद्देश्य की प्राक्तप्त से
सींबींध रखता िै।"" [emphasis supplied]

7. Learned Senior Advocate for
petitioners has not disputed number of
sanctioned posts viz.-a-viz. number of
working teachers in above districts. The
only dispute is that in a case where working
strength is more than sanctioned strength,
whether applications for incoming inter
district transfer could not consider as it was
declared 'zero' and whether permission
was correctly granted only for applications
for outgoing transfer from said district and
thereby some districts are completely
excluded
from
incoming
inter-district
transfer and petitioners are aggrieved that
no transfer is allowed to their desired
district.

8. In this regard, following paragraphs
of counter affidavit would be relevant -:

"9. That here, it is also necessary
to make it clear that respect of para 02 (04)
of the Transfer Policy framed by the State
Government vide Government Order dated
02.06.2023, it has been provided that the
cadre of Board's Teacher depends upon the
local area (Rural or Urban) in any district
and as such the nature of Inter District
Transfer is the change of cadre and
accordingly claiming transfer is not a
matter of right for any teacher because at
the time of appointment, a teacher like the
Petitioners on her own wishes opted her
cadre and after the appointment, she is
bound to follow all the service conditions
during his/her entire services.

10. That the strength of Board's
teachers who come on inter-district transfer
and go on inter-district transfer are not the
same in all the districts and in such a
situation,
in
the
so-called
backward
districts, the strength of assistant teachers
who on inter-district transfer is negligent
and in case percentage of 10% is enhanced,
then there is great possibility that there
2 All. Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849
shall be scarcity of Assistant Teachers in
backward districts which obviously affect
the educational interest of the students and
taking into the aforesaid situation, the
aforesaid decision has been taken.

11. That in the light of the provisions
contained under point no. 2(4) of the Transfer
Policy framed vide Government Order dated
02.06.2023, as a result after calculating the 10%
strength of Assistant Teachers as against the
working teachers, vacancies in the so-called
districts were declared "Zero". For the kind
perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photo copy of the
chart showing the details of vacancies in those
different districts are being filed and marked as
Annexure-CA-2 to this counter affidavit."

9. In order to interfere with a decision
taken by the respondents in pursuance of referred
clause of transfer policy, petitioners have to show
that such decision is arbitrary and absolutely
contrary to the transfer policy.

10. The figures mentioned in regard to
sanctioned strength and working strength are not
in dispute. In some of the districts, working
strength is more than sanctioned strength.
Therefore, State's decision not to allow incoming
transfer cannot be said to be arbitrary since these
group of districts have been created on the basis of
comparison of sanctioned strength and working
strength which is in tune of referred paragraph that
10% has to be considered in terms of sanctioned
posts and strength of working teachers.

11. In case of a particular district, where
there are surplus working strength, if by process of
inter-district transfer more teachers are allowed to
join, the strength may further increase Ratio of
working teachers viz.-a-viz. sanctioned strength
will remain high which cannot be done by way of
transfer.

12. In the policy, words are carefully used
that transfer will be allowed upto 10% only in
comparison of sanctioned posts viz.-a-viz.
working strength.

13. The teachers have joined a particular
district (being selected district wise) with open
eyes. They have no right to work at their desired
district. The transfer policy is a policy of a welfare
State and in absence of any evident arbitrariness or
a clause contrary to law, there is no scope to
interfere with any clause of a transfer policy. As
discussed above, there is no arbitrariness in
framing of concerned clause or its interpretation.

11. In the above background of analysis and
taking note of the judgement passed by this Court
in Shraddha Yadav (supra), this Court does not
find any substantive material which could warrant
interference with a decision taken by the State in
pursuance of the referred clause of transfer policy,
therefore, no interference is warranted and
accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 849
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ - A No. 11555 of 2019
With
Writ - A No. 15498 of 2019
And
Writ - A No. 20414 of 2019

Govind Raman Tripathi, Assistant Teacher
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Deepak Kumar, Sri Santosh
Kumar