Jyoti v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Feb 2026WRIA/1257/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; WRIT-A 1257 of 2026; Jyoti v. State of U.P.; Shree Prakash Singh J.; U.P. Basic Education; online transfer application; transfer to preferred district; Government Orders 23.05.2025, 05.06.2025, 13.06.2025; Secretary U.P. Basic Education Board Prayagraj; mandamus; fresh representation; 15 days; six weeks; disposed of without merits; February 5, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj) within 15 days; opposite party no. 2 directed to consider and decide such representation within a further period of six weeks in accordance with settled proposition of law. ¶¶19

Jyoti vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue commanding respondent no. 2 to pass an appropriate order on the pending online transfer application filed by the petitioner within the time schedule directed by the Court. +1 more

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Without entering into the merits, the Court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to move a fresh representation raising all claims and grounds before opposite party no. 2 (Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj) within 15 days, and directing that if such representation is so moved, opposite party no. 2 shall consider and decide it within a further period of six weeks in accordance with settled proposition of law.

¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WRIT - A No. 1257 of 2026), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, decided February 5, 2026 by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J. — Jyoti v. State of U.P. thru Secy. Basic Education and others. The petitioner, through counsel Dinesh Kumar Singh, sought mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to pass orders on her pending online transfer application and directing respondents no. 2 and 3 to transfer her to her district of preference strictly in accordance with Government Orders dated 23.05.2025, 05.06.2025 and 13.06.2025. At hearing, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the interest of justice would be served if liberty were given to move a fresh representation before opposite party no. 2/Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, to which counsel for the opposite parties had no objection. Without entering into the merits, the Court permitted a fresh representation within 15 days and directed opposite party no. 2 to consider and decide it within six weeks in accordance with settled proposition of law. The writ petition was disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 1257 of 2026

Jyoti

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Singh, Ran Vijay Singh

¶7

Court No. - 18

¶8

HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Brijendra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 & 3, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 and perused the record.

¶10

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs :-

¶11

" a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 to pass and appropriate order upon the pending online transfer application of the petitioners which they opted within set time scheduled directed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶12

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.2 and 3 to transfer the petitioners to District the of their preferences as opted by them in their respective transfer online application, strictly in accordance with Government order dated 23.05.2025,05.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 forthwith."

¶13

After arguing at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the interest of justice would be sub-served if this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to give liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation before the opposite party no. 2/Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj and the opposite party no. 2 may be

¶14

WRIA No. 1257 of 2026

¶15

¶16

directed to consider and decide the same within the stipulated period of time, as may be fixed by this court.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have no objection to the contentions aforesaid.

¶18

Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of the case,the petitioner is given liberty to move a fresh representation, while raising all her claims and grounds before the opposite party no. 2 within the period of 15 days form today and if such representation is moved within aforesaid period, the opposite party no. 2 is directed to consider and decide the same within further period of six weeks, in accordance with settled proposition of law.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

¶20

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶21

February 5, 2026 AKS

¶22

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

Jyoti v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naveen Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Girendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad Yadav and 35 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 7 Others

Shishu Pal Singh (Head Constable , PNO-972140461) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Shiv Ram Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others

Saleem and Another vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Cooperation New Delhi and 4 Others