Prerana Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the U.P. Basic Education Board, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the District Basic Education, Sri R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶11

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27-11-2025, whereby the claim of the petitioner for her transfer from District-Hardoi to District-Gautam Budh Nagar, has been rejected.

¶12

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a woman, who has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the respondent-department, in district-Hardoi and she has four and half years child, who is suffering with 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' disease. He submitted that the doctors of the King George Medical University, Lucknow advised for treatment of the son of the petitioner at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for the rarest disease namely 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' and the husband of the petitioner is working at Gautam Budh Nagar. He submitted that when the request made for transfer, was not considered, the petitioner approached this court by way of instituting Writ A No. 7224 of 2024, wherein this court passed the order on 02-09-2024, which reads as under :-

¶13

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

"1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner's transfer and posting on the post of Assistant Teacher in the National Capital Region or in the alternative in Lucknow in view of the fact that her son Anav Srivastava requires medical attention for conditions akin to Autistic Spectrum Disorder and for which special care is unavailable at her present place of posting at Hardoi.

¶16

3. For the said grievance, petitioner has already submitted a representation but seeks liberty to file a fresh before the authorities concerned.

¶17

4. Considering innocuous prayer without entering into merits of the case, liberty is granted to petitioner to file a fresh representation before opposite party no. 3 i.e. Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Prayagraj who shall consider and decide the same within a period of four weeks in the light of Rules 8 (2) (d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 sympathetically.

¶18

5. With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of.

¶19

He submitted that considering the seriousness of the nature of the disease, with which the son of the petitioner is suffering for this court directed the Secretary, Basic Education, Board to consider and decide the request of the petitioner in the light of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Baisc Education(Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008, sympathetically and after the aforesaid order was passed, the petitioner moved a representation on 10-09-2024 and once the same was not decided, the petitioner moved contempt application bearing no. 1562 of 2025, wherein the date was fixed for hearing on 10-072025 and the order was passed by the authorities on 09-07-2025, by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected thereafter, the petitioner challenged the said order in Writ A No. 9090 of 2025, wherein the order dated 18-08-2025, was passed, which reads as under :-

¶20

"Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record. Heard.

¶21

Under challenge is the order dated 09.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for being transferred to

¶22

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

Gautam Budh Nagar on account of the illness of her son has been rejected on the ground that there are no vacancies available in Gautam Budh Nagar. The matter pertains to a lady Assistant Teacher whose son is having a high risk of Austim. The King Georges Medical University, Lucknow vide its certificate dated 10.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition considering the aforesaid has advised the son of the petitioner to undergo occupational therapy sessions five days a week without break for an initial period of one year until noticeable progress in his development is observed. Subsequent thereto, the Medical University vide its certificate dated 01.03.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit has advised for continuation of the occupational therapy and other therapy sessions without interruption for two years followed by a comprehensive reassessment of the child's progress.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is posted at Hardoi, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 7224 of 2024 Inre; Ms. Prerana Srivastava VS. State of U.P and Ors seeking consideration of her transfer to either the National Capital Region or in the alternative in Lucknow. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 02.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation and the competent authority was directed to decide the same in accordance with law.

¶26

In pursuance thereof, the petitioner only represented for her transfer to Gautam Budh Nagar and not Lucknow which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 09.07.2025 on the ground that vacancies are not available at Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶27

Refuting the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the list annexed as annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit indicating the "deficiency" and "surplus" teachers so far as it pertains to the Gautam Budh Nagar per which as per specific averment made in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit, there is deficiency of 57 Assistant Teacher in Gautam Budh Nagar and 45 Assistant Teachers surplus in district Gautam Budh Nagar meaning thereby that 12 posts are lying vacant even after adjustment and thus it is contended that the petitioner can easily be accommodated on any of the 12 posts which are lying vacant in district Gautam Budh Nagar on the post of Assistant Teacher.

¶28

Further, contention is that the petitioner is also willing to be accommodated as

¶29

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

an Assistant Teacher at Lucknow more particularly when almost her entire leave has been spent in the medical treatment of her son.

¶32

Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions pertaining to the vacancy position at Gautam Budh Nagar as well as at Lucknow of the Assistant Teacher.

¶33

List in the next week as fresh. "

¶34

He submitted that after the aforesaid order was passed, the matter was finally heard on 01-09-2025 and while noting that 12 posts are vacant in district-Gautam Budh Nagar and considering the statement of the counsel for the respondent no. 3, the order impugned therein dated 09-07-2025, was quashed and the respondent-authorities were directed to take a fresh decision within two weeks, but when, no order was passed, then a writ petition was instituted, wherein, the order dated 27-11-2025 was placed by saying that the decision has been taken and the writ petition filed thereof,was dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶35

He argued that infact the son of the petitioner, who is four and half years of age, is suffering with serious disease i.e.'Autism Spectrum Disorder' and if the proper treatment is not done, the son of the petitioner shall suffer hard. He also added that it is not a general recourse, where for the sake of reference, the advice is made, but, it is experts of the King George Medical University, Lucknow, who advised the petitioner to get the treatment done at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. He submitted that the husband of the petitioner is posted at Gautam Budh Nagar and if she would be posted there, same shall facilitate her and her son for getting the treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.

¶36

He further argued that the impugned order dated 27-11-2025 has been passed mainly on four grounds:-

¶37

(1) That if the petitioner is transferred from the school, where she is working i.e. the School at District-Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar, there would be only two teachers left, which would go against the instructions/provision as provided under Section 25 of the U.P. Basic Education(Teachers)(Posting) Rules,2008.

¶38

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

(2) The next ground, which is taken for rejection of the request of the petitioner is that the mid term inter district transfer is not permissible as per the order dated 03-11-2020 passed in Writ A No. 878 of 2020.

¶41

(3) The third ground is that there are ordinary leave available of 1188 days to the petitioner, and therefore, she can take leave for treatment of her child;

¶42

(4) And the last ground is that the distance from District-Hardoi to District-Lucknow is about eighty Kilometer.

¶43

Referring the aforesaid four grounds, he submitted that these grounds are unsustainable. He submits that so far as the mid term transfer is concerned, the petitioner approached this court in the month of September,2024 by way of filing Writ Petition No. 7224 of 2024, wherein an order was passed on 02-09-2024 and thereafter, several sets of litigations have been instituted and therefore, there is no question with respect to any request for transfer in the mid of the academic sessions. He further argued that these are the peculiar circumstances, where the transfer is requested on behest of the petitioner, as the son of the petitioner is suffering with 'Autism Spectrum Disorder'. He further submitted that the petitioner has already taken 570 days' leave and therefore, this cannot be ground so as to reject the request of the petitioner for her transfer from district-Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶44

So far as the distance from district-Hardoi to district-Delhi, is concerned, that is about 400 K.Ms. and taking the ground that treatment of the son of the petitioner is available at district-Lucknow, the distance from district-Hardoi to district-Lucknow is shorter, is nonest as the ground has already been taken and considered by this court that on the advice of experts of the doctors of the King George Medical University, Lucknow, the treatment is to be done at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi, for five days, within a week and therefore, the ground which is taken that the treatment of the son of the petitioner is available at King George Medical University, Lucknow, cannot be accepted as the educational authorities are not the medical experts, who can say that the treatment is available at

¶45

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶46

6

¶47

King George Medical University, Lucknow, whereas experts themselves have advised the treatment of the son of the petitioner, in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi.

¶48

Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the order dated 27-112025 has been passed in a mechanical manner and the peculiar circumstances of the petitioner have not been considered and even there is no whisper on the same. He further submitted that this court in Writ A No. 9090 of 2025, has taken note of the fact, regarding the vacancies as well as the special circumstances, for which the petitioner is facing and has passed the order for considering the request of the petitioner for her transfer. He submits that in this view of the matter, the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

¶49

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the District Basic Education Board has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that in compliance of the order dated 01-09-2025 passed in Writ A No. 9090 of 2025, the request of the petitioner with respect to her transfer from district-Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar has thoroughly been considered and the reasons have also been mentioned in the order impugned in the writ petition. He submitted that transfer in the mid academic session is not in the interest of the students and further submitted that the medical facilities with respect to the 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' disease is available at King George Medical University, Lucknow and so far as the leave of 1188 days is concerned, that is still available to the petitioner. Therefore, submission is that no interference is warranted in the present matter.

¶50

Upon considering the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it is apparent that the petitioner is a woman and she sought her transfer from district-Hardoi to district Gautam Budh Nagar, on the ground that medical experts/doctors have advised for treatment of her son, at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, for five days within a week. The husband of the petitioner is working in some department at district-Gautam Budh Nagar. The request has been made by the petitioner, which was turned down on the ground that no vacancy is available at district-Gautam Budh

¶51

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶52

7

¶53

Nagar and subsequently, she assailed that order in Writ A No. 9090 of 2025, wherein this court while noting the fact that there are 12 vacancies of Assistant Teachers, available in district Gautam Budh Nagar, the order was passed on 01-09-2025, directing the respondent no. 3 i.e. Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board to consider and pass the fresh order, on the request of the petitioner for her transfer, from district -Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar,whereas the respondent-authority, has taken another ground than availability of the vacancies, which is impermissible under law,as this would amount blowing hot and cold in one time.

¶54

It is not a case that these grounds were not available at the time when the earlier request of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 09-07-2025.

¶55

This court has noticed that the 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' disease is rarest and severe disease and there is advice of the medical experts of the King Medical University, Lucknow for treatment of the son of the petitioner at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, which cannot be denied by the educational authorities, as the educational authorities are not the experts, who can determine that the treatment of the son of the petitioner can better be done at King George Medical University, Lucknow, regarding the 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' disease.

¶56

So far as the mid session transfer is concerned, this court finds that in peculiar circumstances, where the four and half years child of the petitioner is suffering with severe disease of 'Autism Spectrum Disorder' and has been advised for five days within a week for treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, the same would not come into the way.

¶57

It is also noticeable that the respondent-authority has also taken a ground that if the petitioner is transferred from district-Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar, there would be only three Assistant Teachers in the institution, but, on the other hand, they have also observed that the petitioner has 1188 days' leave and only 570 days' leave, have been taken as yet. If the petitioner is on leave for

¶58

WRIA No. 14417 of 2025

¶59

8

¶60

570 days, that must hit the interest of the students rather if the services of the petitioner are taken at district-Gautam Budh Nagar, where the vacancies are available.

¶61

In this view of the matter, the order dated 27-11-2025 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed.

¶62

Since, it is the fourth time litigation and petitioner's four and half years child is suffering with the serious disease namely 'Autism Spectrum Disorder', therefore, looking into the peculiar circumstances, the opposite party no. 3 is directed to transfer the petitioner from district-Hardoi to district-Gautam Budh Nagar within period of two weeks from the date of this order.

¶63

With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶64

It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as precedent as the same has been passed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶65

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶66

December 15, 2025 AKS

¶67

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prerana Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prerana Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Prasad Vs U.O.I.Thru Secy.Communications Ministry Newdelhi and Ors.

Rizwanullah Qidwai Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Education Deptt.and Ors.

Dhirendra Singh Vs Govt. of U.P.Thru Pradhan Sachiv Parivahan Vibhag and Ors.

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Archana Saini vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Agriculture Education Research and 2 Others