Dismissed¶20

Prashant Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Apr 2026WRIA/3440/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; inter-district transfer on medical/compassionate grounds refused; Assistant Teacher, district cadre vs State cadre distinction; Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board rejection upheld; child with Autism/severe intellectual disabilities; posting at Reusa block, Sitapur; request for Lucknow transfer; representation rejected as mechanical; respondent no. 3 order dated 16.12.2025 not quashed; Santosh Kumar Verma (W.P. No. 8711 of 2025) distinguished; Rajeev Singh, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

As the petitioner's services came in the district cadre, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board. ¶19

Prashant Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3440 of 2026

Prashant Kumar Singh

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Basic Education Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ayushi Singh, Prakhar Kapoor Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Rishabh Tripathi

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Ayushi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sabhajeet Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2, Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri Rishabh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶10

The present petition is filed with the following prayers :

¶11

" (i). issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the respondent no. 3 ;

¶12

(ii). issue any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to transfer the petitioner from his current posting at Reusa block, Sitapur District to Lucknow thereby enabling the petitioner to provide the essential medical care required for his daughter's severe intellectual disabilities."

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is having three children and one is suffering from Autism and he needs a special care, as his wife is residing at Lucknow but the petitioner is appointed as Assistant Teacher in District Sitapur.

¶14

Considering the ailment of one child, a representation was given to the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board for transferring the petitioner on sympathetic ground in any school at District Lucknow but the same was rejected in a most mechanical manner, therefore, kind indulgence of this court is necessary. Learned counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court in an identical matter in the case of Santosh Kumar Verma vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Writ Petition No.8711 of 2025.

¶15

Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently

¶16

WRIA No. 3440 of 2026

¶17

¶18

opposed the prayer of petitioner. He submitted that the cadre of petitioner is a District Cadre and only in a special circumstance, inter-district transfers are only being permitted when the State Government issues any policy, not in a routine manner. He further submitted that most of the teachers are claiming their appointment either in Lucknow or nearby places therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Secretary. He also submitted that reasoning is also properly given by the Secretary, U.P. Basic that in the said scheme, eight teachers are required and 254 students are studying but presently, only four teachers are working.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition, as it is undisputed fact that the wife of the petitioner is an educated lady and she is residing at her old house along with three children ; as services of petitioner came in district cadre therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the petitioner is also not applicable in the present case as the petitioner in the aforesaid petition belongs to the State Cadre.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is misconceived and is, hereby, dismissed.

¶21

April 15, 2026 PS

¶22

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prashant Kumar Singh 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?

Prashant Kumar Singh 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?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanpal Singh and Another vs Director Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Lko. and 2 Others

Dr Govind Prasad vs Mr Deepak Kumar De Gm (1) State Bank of India Motimahal Road Lko. and Another

Nitish Ranjan Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ram Raj Alias Ram Raj Rana vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Narendra Kumar Singh and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others