Disposed¶15

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 May 2026WRIA/6016/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court interim stay of teacher's suspension dated 13.04.2026 premised on non-joining transferred place after transfer dated 30.12.2025; petitioner permitted to continue at original posting, neither relieved nor noticed; reference to Arun Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., Writ-A No. 179 of 2026 (order dt. 17.02.2025); fence-sitter objection; UDISE pupil-teacher ratio (70 students, 1 headmaster, 4 teachers); BSA to file instructions; listed fresh 11.05.2026; bench: Manju Rani Chauhan, J.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the effect and operation of the suspension order dated 13.04.2026 till the next date of listing; case to be listed fresh on 11.05.2026, with respondent-BSA to obtain instructions on notice/relieving within one week. ¶15

Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the suspension order dated 13.04.2026, based on the petitioner's failure to join at the transferred place, is justified when she was permitted to continue at the original place of posting and was neither relieved nor received any notice to join. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

Till the next date of listing (11.05.2026), the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 13.04.2026 shall remain stayed.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

The suspension order, which was based on the ground that the petitioner had not joined at the transferred place, is unjustified, since the petitioner was permitted to continue at the original place of posting and was neither relieved nor received any notice to join at the transferred place.

¶9

Key takeaways

Learned counsel for the respondent-BSA was allowed one week's time to obtain instructions on the question of notice or relieving, and the case is to be put up fresh on 11.05.2026.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim order (Manju Rani Chauhan, J.) in Writ-A No. 6016 of 2026 (Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another). Petitioner, transferred on 30.12.2025, submitted a representation and did not join the transferred place, awaiting decision in light of the order dated 17.02.2025 in Arun Pratap Singh (Writ-A No. 179 of 2026). She continued at the original posting, was neither relieved nor served notice to join. Holding the suspension order dated 13.04.2026, founded on non-joining, unjustified, the Court stayed its effect and operation till 11.05.2026. Respondent-BSA's objections (fence-sitter contention; UDISE data of 70 students, one headmaster, four teachers requiring joining to maintain pupil-teacher ratio) noted; counsel for BSA to obtain instructions on notice/relieving within one week.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 6016 of 2026

¶3

Sarita Devi

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		....	.Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anil Kumar, Advocate	Saurabh	Tripathi, Sr.
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C., Umesh	Chandra	Kesarwani

¶6

Court No. - 52

¶7

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

After the transfer of the petitioner on 30.12.2025, a representation was submitted by the petitioner. In view of the controversy being heard by this Court and decided on 17.02.2025 in Writ-A No. 179 of 2026 ( Arun Pratap Singh and 37 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others ), the petitioner did not go and join at the transferred place, waiting for her representation to be decided in the light of the observations made in the order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Arun Pratap Singh (supra) .

¶9

However, the petitioner was permitted to continue at the original place of posting, and she has neither been relieved nor received any notice to join at the transferred place. Therefore, the suspension order, which was based on the ground that the petitioner had not joined at the transferred place, is unjustified.

¶10

On the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent-BSA submits that the petitioner had not previously approached this Court and, therefore, a 'fence-sitter' cannot claim the right to continue at the original place of posting. Even otherwise, pursuant to the directions of this Court, the data has been updated on the UDISE portal, which indicates that there are 70 students in the institution, with one headmaster and four teachers working at the original place of posting of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has to join at the transferred place to maintain the pupil-teacher ratio as required.

¶11

WRIA No. 6016 of 2026

¶12

¶13

However, regarding the issue of notice or relieving, the learned counsel for the respondent-BSA requests one week's time to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶14

Put up this case on 11.05.2026, as fresh.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned suspension order dated 13.04.2026 shall remain stayed.

¶16

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)

¶17

May 1, 2026

¶18

Jitendra/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rekha Gupta vs District Basic Education Officer Basti and 4 Others

Adila Sharif vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Archana Richhariya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sahab Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Awaneesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others