Dr. Sarita Yadav vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Meenakshi Parihar Singh and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 7 and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the decision/resolution of the Committee of Management dated 14.11.2025, after summoning its original and further the letter dated 13.6.2026 issued by the respondent no.7, i.e., the Principal of the Mahila Mahavidyalaya, Bahraich, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Institution'), whereby the decision taken by the Committee of Management of the Institution, has been communicated to the petitioner.

¶13

Contention put forth by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed in the Institution on the post of Professor (Hindi), on 20.05.2022 and since then, she is working with the most satisfaction of her superiors. He submitted that the Institution in question is affiliated with Maa Pateshwari University, Balrampur, and receives grantsin-aid from the State Government and the provisions of U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act

¶14

WRIA No. 1753 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

2023') and the U.P. Aided Colleges Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2024') are applicable upon the same. He also added that the Institution is not a government institution, but it is an aided non-government institution.

¶17

Further submission is that on 15.07.2025, one post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) in Bappa Sri Narain Vocational Post Graduate College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as College), fell vacant and the petitioner submitted her application for issuance of No Objection Certificate, for her appointment against the said pos, by way of transfer. He submitted that as per the provisions of Sub Rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 2024, the transfer application for single /mutual transfer from one college to another is to be submitted to the Director, Higher Education, through the management, which is legally constituted and approved by the University, along with the written consent of the management of both the colleges.

¶18

6. The aforesaid provision reads as under:-

¶19

"3. Conditions for Transfer of Teachers:-

¶20

(6) The transfer application for Single/mutual transfers from one College to the other shall be submitted to the Director, Higher Education through the Management legally constituted and approved by the University along with the written consent of the management of both the colleges. The Director, Higher Education shall submit this recommendation to the Government within one month from the date of receipt of the application. The Government shall take decision either on the basis of recommendation of the Director, Higher Education or on its own."

¶21

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that, in furtherance to the application of the petitioner for her appointment by way of transfer, 'the college' has issued the consent, but the 'Institution' wherein the petitioner is working, has refuted the consent by way of resolution dated 14.11.2025. The resolution no.3 of the resolution of Committee of Management dated 14.11.2025 is quoted as under:-

¶22

"3. डॉ० अंिकता िसह अिस०प्रो० मध्य कालीन इितहास एवं डॉ० सिरता यादव अिस०प्रो० िहन्दी के एकल स्थानान्तरण हेतु अनापित्त प्रमाण पत्र प्रदान करने के सम्बन्ध में।"

¶23

WRIA No. 1753 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Demonstrating the aforesaid resolution, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sole ground for denial of the consent is that since under clause 17 of the Government Order dated 11.06.2025, it is prescribed that no lecturer shall be transferred from the same aspirational district. He submitted that the ground taken for refusal of the consent is non est as the Government Order dated 11.06.2025 is applicable to the government institution and not to the non-government aided institution. Adding his arguments, he submitted that in case of the transfer of the teachers of non-government aided institution, the Rules, 2024 will come into play and on place of invoking any provision under Rules, 2024, the Committee of Management has relied upon the Government Order dated 11.06.2025, which is patently erroneous and unlawful.

¶26

In addition, he argued that, on the letter of the President of the Committee of Management, the District Magistrate directed an inquiry into the matter, and the report was submitted thereof by the City Magistrate, Bahraich, on 16.01.2026, wherein it has been mentioned that the Government Order dated 11.06.2025, is applicable to government institutions, and further, the ratio of students has also been discussed and finally, the observation of the inquiry officer is that there seems to be no legal impediment in issuing No Objection Certificate to the petitioner.

¶27

Concluding his argument, he submitted that even otherwise, though the short counter affidavit has been filed by the Manager of the college, who is having malice with the petitioner, but apparently there is no resolution of the Committee of Management for filing of the counter affidavit or doing pairavi, thus, the same also goes against the settled proposition of law, therefore, submission is that the resolution dated 14.11.2025, is unsustainable, and the subsequent order dated 13.01.2026, which is a letter of communication, is also liable to be quashed.

¶28

Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 & 7 has vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that, in fact, this is not only one ground that the district, wherein the petitioner is working, comes within aspirational district, and the petitioner cannot be transferred; rather, the petitioner had only informed that the Committee of Management of the college had given its consent, and no

¶29

WRIA No. 1753 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

written consent was ever submitted before the Committee of Management of the institution. He next submitted that, if the petitioner would be allowed to transfer, the teaching work in the institution would be hampered. Therefore, submission is that the resolution has rightly been passed, and no consent can be given to transfer the petitioner from the institution to the college concerned.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it transpires that the dispute arose when the petitioner moved a letter for transfer, requesting consent, and that was refuted by the Committee of Management of the institution, vide the resolution dated 14.11.2025. When this court examines the matter in facts and law, it reveals that the Rules of 2024 are applicable in respect of the appointment of a teacher from one institution to another institution, by way of transfer. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 3 of the Rules of 2024 is very clear in this regard.

¶33

This Court has also noticed that, so far as non-government aided institutions are concerned, the Rules of 2024,, with respect to the transfer of teachers, are applicable, and admittedly, the present institution is a nongovernment aided institution, therefore, the provisions of the Government Order dated 11.6.2025 is not applicable in the instant matter. .

¶34

Having at glance, the resolution is evident that the sole ground for refusal of the consent is that the Government Order dated 11.06.2025 does not permit such transfers. The Government Order dated 11.06.2025, in fact, is applicable to the teachers of the government educational institutions, therefore, denying consent on the ground of the provision of the Government Order dated 11.06.2025, is patently unlawful and erroneous.

¶35

This Court has seen that while the resolution has been passed, there was no other ground taken so far as the denial of consent is concerned. The fact remains that the college where the petitioner is proposed to be transferred has already given its consent, on 06.10.2025 and the only hurdle is the refutal of consent by the Committee of Management of the Institution.

¶36

This Court is also aware of the settled law in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 , that every order/decision shall

¶37

WRIA No. 1753 of 2026

¶38

5

¶39

stand on its own legs, which is lacking here in the resolution dated 14.11.2025.

¶40

Consequently, the resolution of the Committee of Management, by virtue of which the consent of transfer of the petitioner has been declined, is hereby quashed.

¶41

It is directed that the Committee of Management shall grant consent as per the Rules of 2024, within a period of two weeks.

¶42

The writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶43

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶44

March 13, 2026

¶45

Ram Murti

¶46

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Sarita Yadav v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sarita Yadav v. State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education U.P. Govt. Lko. and 6 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

Vijay Kumar Tripathi vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Girish Kumar Misra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education Lko. and 6 Others

Madhuri Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ram Janam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 4 Others

Ashish Verma and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Lko. and Another

Anjali Rana vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Education New Delhi and 3 Others