Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Pankaj Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition finally disposed of with consent; petitioner permitted to lodge a representation before respondent no.2 within two weeks, to be decided by respondent no.2 through a reasoned and speaking order within a further four weeks; merits left unadjudicated and joining made conditional on the competent authority's decision.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's within-district transfer order dated 30.06.2025, represented as a transfer on his own request, could validly be acted upon when the petitioner had filled his option online but had not submitted the documents in support thereof. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In case the petitioner submits a representation before respondent no.2 within two weeks from the date hereof, respondent no.2 shall endeavour to decide it by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation.

Key takeaways

This Court expressly clarified that it did not adjudicate the merits of the petitioner's claim; the writ petition was disposed of with consent on the strength of the above procedural direction.ratio¶14
The petitioner's joining is subject to the decision that may be taken by the competent authority in pursuance of this Court's order.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench — WRIT - A No. 7562 of 2025 (Abdul Moin, J.; Order Date 15.7.2025). A teacher challenged an intra-district transfer order dated 30.06.2025 described as being on his own request, contending that although he had filled in his option online he had not submitted the supporting documents, so the respondents could not lawfully act on an incomplete application; the respondents countered by invoking Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 16.06.2025, under which a teacher's online-submitted application is treated as complete. With the consent of counsel the Court finally disposed of the writ petition without going into the merits, directing that if the petitioner submits a representation before respondent no.2 within two weeks, respondent no.2 shall decide it by a reasoned and speaking order within a further four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order with the representation, and clarifying that the petitioner's joining remains subject to the decision of the competent authority.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40140

Court No. - 5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7562 of 2025

Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ran Vijay Singh,Ravi Prakash Yadav

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents-State No.1 & 3, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Shri Ravi Prakash Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5.

With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being disposed of.

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of the impugned order dated 30.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, the petitioner has been transferred within the district by indicating that his transfer is on the basis of his own request.

Contention is that although the petitioner had filled in his option online but he did not submit the documents in support thereof consequently the respondents could not have acted upon the same and in having transferred the petitioner by purporting it to be a transfer on his own request and thus, aforesaid transfer order so far as it pertains to the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents support the impugned order by contending that Clause 9 of the Government Order dated 16.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, itself indicates that as soon as a teacher submits online application, his application would be treated to be completed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to submit a representation before the respondent no.2 which may be directed to be decided within a fixed time frame to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.

In view of the above, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits a representation within two weeks from today before the respondent no.2 then the respondent no.2 shall endevour to decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with representation.

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim set forth by the petitioner.

It is made clear that joining of the petitioner would be subject to the decision that may be taken by the competent authority in pursuance to this order.

Order Date :- 15.7.2025 prateek

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench