Disposed¶13

Ravikant Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2026WRIA/357/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ - A No. 357 of 2026, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, decided January 28, 2026, by Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.; Ravikant Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 others; challenge concerning Government Order dated 14.11.2025 transferring teachers to maintain students-teachers ratio; earlier order dated 23.05.2025 under which teachers had already been transferred and had joined at the transferred place; bunch of petitions on the same issue already heard; first paragraph of order dated 19.01.2026 scored out as wrongly transcribed; interim relief that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner till 10.02.2026; matter posted as fresh on 10.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection: no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till 10.02.2026; matter to be posted as fresh on 10.02.2026. ¶13

Ravikant Maurya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection: no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till 10.02.2026; matter to be posted as fresh on 10.02.2026.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether interference by this Court is required in respect of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 transferring teachers to maintain students-teachers ratio, given that teachers had already been transferred and had joined at the transferred place pursuant to the order dated 23.05.2025.

¶9

Court's answer

Interim view of the Court: since, in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2025, few teachers have already been transferred and have joined at the transferred place, there was no occasion for issuance of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 for transferring teachers to maintain students-teachers ratio; its issuance has resulted in a chaotic situation, hence interference by this Court is required. Final decision deferred; matter posted as fresh on 10.02.2026.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The first paragraph of the order dated 19.01.2026 is scored out as it was wrongly transcribed.

¶7

Key takeaways

Interim direction: till the next date of listing (10.02.2026), no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.), Writ - A No. 357 of 2026, Ravikant Maurya v. State of U.P. and 3 others. The first paragraph of the order dated 19.01.2026 was scored out as wrongly transcribed. The Court recorded its considered opinion that, in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2025, few teachers had already been transferred and had joined at the transferred place; there was therefore no occasion for issuance of the subsequent Government Order dated 14.11.2025 transferring a number of teachers to maintain students-teachers ratio, which had resulted in a chaotic situation, and interference by the Court was accordingly required. The matter was posted as fresh on 10.02.2026, with an interim direction that till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 357 of 2026

¶3

Ravikant Maurya

¶4

	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ajit Pratap Kushwaha, Virendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bipin Bihari Pandey, C.S.C.
Court No.- 52

¶5

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶6

It appears that the first paragraph of the order dated 19.01.2026 has been wrongly transcribed as the matter had already been listed before this Court and date was fixed, therefore, there was no occasion to summon the records from the Registry upon the mention made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

Accordingly, the first paragraph of the order dated 19.01.2026 is scored out today as the same has wrongly been transcribed.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶9

The bunch of petitions dealing with the same issue has already been heard by this Court. This Court is of the considered opinion that, in pursuance of the order dated 23.05.2025, few teachers have already been transferred, pursuant to which they have joined at the transferred place. Therefore there was no occasion for issuance of another Government Order dated 14.11.2025 for transferring number of teachers to maintain students-teachers ratio. The issuance of the another Government Order has resulted in a chaotic situation, hence, in

¶10

WRIA No. 357 of 2026

¶11

¶12

these circumstances, interference is required by this Court.

¶13

Let this matter be posted as fresh on 10.02.2026.

¶14

Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

¶15

January 28, 2026 Kalp Nath Singh

¶16