In a pivotal decision addressing the delicate balance between administrative policies and public interest, the Allahabad High Court ruled against mid-session revocation of teacher transfers, emphasizing that such moves adversely impact students’ education. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava delivered the judgment in Special Appeal No. 969 of 2024, reinforcing the principle that students’ academic interests must remain paramount in policy implementation.
The case centered on the appellants, three teachers transferred to Jhansi under the inter-district transfer policy, who were later instructed to return to their original district of Chitrakoot mid-session. The appellants challenged the revocation order, arguing that it disrupted their professional stability and, more importantly, the students’ academic progress.
Background of the Case
The appellants—Naveen Kamal Srivastava, along with two others—were teachers employed under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board. They were transferred from Chitrakoot to Jhansi as part of the state’s inter-district transfer policy for teachers, issued via a government order dated June 2, 2023. After being relieved from their duties in Chitrakoot, they joined their new postings in Jhansi in July 2023.
However, on November 29, 2023, the District Basic Education Officer issued an order canceling their transfer and directing them to return to their original district. This was based on Clause 5 of the Circular dated June 28, 2023, which mandated transfers based on specific criteria, including seniority and procedural guidelines.
The appellants filed a writ petition (Writ-A No. 20779 of 2023) challenging the revocation orders. The single judge partially ruled in their favor, putting the transfer orders in abeyance until the end of the academic session but refrained from granting full relief.
The appellants sought further modification of the single judge’s order through the present appeal, contending that their transfers were valid and that mid-session revocations violated the transfer policy.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Adverse Impact on Students: The appellants argued that Clause 18 of the transfer policy (June 2, 2023) prohibits mid-session transfers to safeguard students’ academic continuity.
2. Legal Validity of Circular Clause: They contended that the transfer revocation orders, based on Clause 5 of the June 28, 2023 Circular, were contrary to the overarching transfer policy.
3. Judicial Review in Administrative Decisions: Whether the judiciary could interfere with the administrative transfer decisions, given their discretionary nature.
Court’s Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier decision of the single judge. It emphasized that mid-session transfers were detrimental to students and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. The court reasoned that such transfers disrupt educational progress and burden schools with unnecessary administrative adjustments.
Key Observations:
1. Students’ Interests Take Precedence: The Bench noted, “It would be adverse to the interest of students to allow petitioners to be relieved from their transferred place in mid-session.”
2. Policy and Administrative Discretion: The court reiterated that transfer policies are administrative and should not be interfered with unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or illegality.
3. Judicial Precedents: Citing related judgments, including Shraddha Yadav v. State of U.P. and Smt. Radha v. State of U.P., the court highlighted that similar arguments had been considered and dismissed in earlier cases.
Key Arguments by Parties
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare, argued that the revocation orders lacked legal foundation, particularly since they were mid-session and violated Clause 18 of the transfer policy. They also contended that Clause 5 of the Circular dated June 28, 2023, could not override the broader transfer policy issued by the government.
The respondents, represented by Ms. Archana Singh and Standing Counsel Tej Bhanu Pandey, countered that the transfer orders were aligned with procedural requirements. They argued that allowing teachers to remain in positions created administrative inconsistencies and disrupted the state’s education policy.
