Raj Kumar Gautam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. R.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no. 1.

¶12

The challenge is laid to the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer and the orders dated 13.10.2025 passed by the Block Education Officer, i.e. respondent no. 5, whereby the petitioner was repatriated, on their earlier place of posting.

¶13

Contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 16.6.2025, a policy has been introduced for intra district transfer of the Assistant Teachers of Basic Education Department, in pursuant to the U.P. Right to Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 2011'), the aforesaid policy was promulgated and thereafter, pursuant to the letter dated 26.6.2025, the schedule was provided to give effect to the voluntary transfer of teachers during the period 28.6.2025 to 30.6.2025. He added that as per Circular, the petitioner was relieved from their previous schools and were sent to their respective place of postings. He added that the petitioner has been working on their transferred place of posting for last more than three and half months and are getting salary.

¶14

He further argued that after the first round of the voluntary transfer proceedings completed on 30.6.2025 by Circular dated 22.7.2025, the second round of voluntary transfer and adjustment of teachers who had not earlier opted or applied, were given opportunity. He submitted that

¶15

WRIA No. 2853 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

clarificatory order was issued by the respondent no.2 with respect to second round of transfer for relieving of teachers. He submitted that orders dated 22.07.2025 and 8.8.2025 pertains to voluntary transfer and adjustment of teachers in the second round and that does not cover the transfer, which has already been given effect to by virtue of the circular of first round. He has drawn attention of this Court towards the circular dated 22.7.2025, which in itself is clarificatory that the first round of transfer proceedings have been completed on 30.6.2025 and this is admittedly second round of voluntary transfer. He added that in fact, it is the District Basic Education Officer who has misinterpreted the Circular dated 8.8.2025 though the same is not applicable in the case of the present petitioner.

¶18

The chart itself is evident to show that he is being transferred from new place of posting to earlier place of posting where there would be more than one teacher then the said school would not remain with the sole teacher. He submitted that in fact, the anomaly arose because of the misinterpretation of the circular dated 8.8.2025 and, therefore, the orders dated 22.09.2025 and 27.09.2025 are erroneous and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the U.P. Basic Education Board has opposed the contentions aforesaid but he has failed to contradict the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the first round of proceedings of voluntary transfer has been undertaken and completed on 30.6.2025, it was not open for the respondents to reconsider the transfer of the petitioner, without there being nay further option for voluntary transfer or adjustment.

¶20

Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is prima facie apparent that the first round of transfer as per the Circular dated 16.6.2025 was completed on 30.6.2025 and the same also emerges from the Circular dated 22.7.2025 as the authorities were fully aware that the first round of transfer was over and, therefore, reconsidering the transfer without any option given by the petitioners further would amount to reviewing its earlier order, without being any order or circular. In this view of the matter, it prima facie reveals that the District Basic Education Officer is mistaken while misinterpreting the orders dated 8.8.2025 and 22.07.2025, thus, matter requires consideration.

¶21

Let the counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within three weeks.

¶22

WRIA No. 2853 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

A week thereafter is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶25

Connect with Writ-A No.13581 of 2025.

¶26

Until further orders, the orders dated 22.09.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed by the respondent nos. 4 & 5 respectively, shall remain stayed so far as the present petitioner is concerned.

¶27

March 17, 2026 Ram Murti

¶28

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶29

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

Raj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumbul Jahan Thru. Her Husband Mohd. Afzal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Singh @ Bade Tillu @ Ram Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko.

Ram Manohar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Housing and Urban Planning Lko. and 4 Others

Ankit Khare vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Gaurav Agnihotri vs Idbi Bank Limited Thru. Managing Director and CEO Mumbai and 2 Others

Himanshu @ Hari Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 4 Others