Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Pragati Srivastava, was working as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Chuppepur Development Area, Chakia, District Chandauli. She sought an inter-district transfer from the said school in District Chandauli to Primary School, Devapur Pachwal, City Block, District Mirzapur, bearing U-DIOS Code 09691408601.

The petitioner had married Mr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava on 19 April 2022 in District Mirzapur. Her husband was a permanent resident of District Mirzapur and was employed in the GST Department, presently posted as Senior Assistant in the Office of Joint Commissioner (SIB), State GST, Mirzapur Range, Mirzapur.

It was further submitted that the petitioner’s father-in-law and mother-in-law were elderly persons suffering from various age-related health ailments and that there was no other person in her in-laws’ family to look after them.

The petitioner, being a female teacher posted in a different district away from her husband and in-laws, sought transfer to District Mirzapur. According to her, residing with her husband and in-laws would facilitate their proper care and would also enable her to discharge her duties as an Assistant Teacher.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Court were:

  1. Whether a female teacher could seek an inter-district transfer to the district of residence of her husband or in-laws under Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008.
  2. Whether the petitioner’s request for transfer from an aspirational district, namely Chandauli, to a non-aspirational district, namely Mirzapur, could be denied merely because the Government had not framed a specific policy in this regard.
  3. Whether implementation of Rule 8(2)(d) was dependent upon the prior framing of a Government policy.
  4. Whether the competent transferring authority was required to consider the petitioner’s request in light of the object and purpose of Rule 8(2)(d).

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner submitted that she was working as an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Chuppepur Development Area, Chakia, District Chandauli, while her matrimonial family was situated in District Mirzapur.

It was argued that:

  • The petitioner had married Mr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava on 19 April 2022.
  • Her husband was a permanent resident of District Mirzapur.
  • Her husband was employed in the GST Department and posted as Senior Assistant in the Office of Joint Commissioner (SIB), State GST, Mirzapur Range, Mirzapur.
  • Her father-in-law and mother-in-law were elderly and suffering from various age-related health ailments.
  • There was no other person in the in-laws’ family to look after them.
  • Being a female teacher posted in another district, the petitioner sought transfer to District Mirzapur so that she could live with her husband and in-laws, care for them and continue to discharge her professional duties.

The petitioner specifically relied upon Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008, which permits applications for inter-district transfer of female teachers, under special circumstances, to the place of residence of their husband or to their in-laws’ district.

Respondents’ Arguments

On behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 5, it was submitted that:

  • District Chandauli was an aspirational district.
  • District Mirzapur was a non-aspirational district.
  • Inter-district transfers from aspirational districts to non-aspirational districts were generally not permissible.
  • No policy had yet been framed by the Government in this regard.

Accordingly, the respondents sought to rely upon the absence of a specific Government policy concerning such transfers.

Court’s Findings

The Allahabad High Court rejected the respondents’ contention and held it to be misconceived.

The Court made the following important findings:

1. Rule 8(2)(d) Is Not Dependent Upon Framing of a Government Policy

The Court held that implementation of Rule 8(2)(d) does not depend upon the framing of any policy.

The Court clarified that although the Government may frame a policy, failure to frame such a policy does not mean that Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008 cannot be given effect.

2. Statutory Rules Cannot Be Rendered Ineffective Merely Due to Absence of Policy

The Court observed that the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 had been made under the Basic Education Act, 1972.

There was nothing in the Rules to suggest that a separate policy was required to be framed under Rule 8(2)(d) before transfers contemplated under that provision could be made.

Accordingly, the absence of a policy could not be used as a ground to prevent consideration of the petitioner’s transfer request.

3. Female Teacher’s Special Circumstances Must Be Considered Under Rule 8(2)(d)

The Court took note of the object sought to be achieved by Rule 8(2)(d), which specifically contemplates inter-district transfer applications by female teachers under special circumstances to the place of residence of their husband or to their in-laws’ district.

The petitioner’s circumstances, including her marriage, her husband’s residence and employment in District Mirzapur, and the condition of her elderly in-laws, were required to be kept in mind while considering her transfer request.

4. Director, Basic Education Was the Competent Authority

The Court recorded that, as informed by the counsel appearing for the respondents, the competent transferring authority for an inter-district transfer was Respondent No. 5, namely the Director, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow.

Court Order / Final Directions

The Allahabad High Court directed the Director, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow, to consider the petitioner’s request for transfer:

  • from Primary School, Chuppepur Development Area, Chakia, District Chandauli;
  • to Primary School, Devapur Pachwal, City Block, District Mirzapur, U-DIOS Code 09691408601;

on a priority basis.

The competent authority was directed to keep in mind:

  • the facts and circumstances of the petitioner’s case; and
  • the object sought to be achieved by Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008.

The Court directed that the matter be considered within two months from the date of service of a certified copy of the order.

The Court further directed that if no vacancy or post was available in Primary School, Devapur Pachwal, City Block, District Mirzapur, the petitioner’s transfer should be considered to any nearby schools.

Most importantly, the Court expressly directed that the petitioner’s application shall not be rejected on the ground that no policy had been framed in this regard.

With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.

Important Clarification

The most significant clarification arising from the judgment is that the operation and implementation of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 is not conditional upon the Government first framing a separate transfer policy.

The judgment clarifies that:

  • the Government may frame a policy;
  • however, absence of such a policy does not make Rule 8(2)(d) ineffective;
  • a transfer request falling within the scope of Rule 8(2)(d) must be considered in accordance with the statutory provision;
  • the application cannot be rejected merely because no separate policy has been framed;
  • where the specifically requested school has no vacancy or available post, consideration may extend to nearby schools, in accordance with the Court’s directions in the present case.

Section / Rule Involved

Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008

The provision, as reproduced and considered in the judgment, states in substance that under normal circumstances applications for inter-district transfers of male and female teachers would not be entertained within five years of posting; however, under special circumstances, applications for inter-district transfer of female teachers may be entertained for the place of residence of their husband or their in-laws’ district.

Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972

The Court specifically observed that the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008 had been made under the Basic Education Act, 1972. This formed part of the Court’s reasoning that implementation of Rule 8(2)(d) was not dependent upon a separately framed Government policy.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783492467_1394compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.