Dismissed¶¶6

Mansi v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Apr 2026WPSS/939/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court; WPSS No. 936 of 2026 with WPSS Nos. 939 and 941 of 2026; common judgment dated 02.04.2026 by Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; neutral citation 2026:UHC:2353. Facts: Assistant Teacher (Science) appointed 04.10.2024 in Government Primary School, District Chamoli, on two-year probation; mutual transfer application dated 26.05.2025 to Kashipur turned down as incomplete; challenge to inter-departmental letters dated 31.01.2026 (Director General, School Education) and 19.02.2026 (Director, Elementary Education) directing identification of, and action against, teachers seeking transfer before completing probation; reference to violation of Conduct Rules. Issue: maintainability/prematurity and absence of cause of action absent disciplinary action. Outcome: writ petitions dismissed as premature with liberty to approach the Court when cause of action arises. Keywords: premature writ petition; locus standi; cause of action; inter-departmental letter; probation period; mutual transfer; Assistant Teacher; Conduct Rules.

What did the court decide?

SL.
No.

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSS No. 936 of 2026
With
WPSS No. 939 of 2026
WPSS No. 941 of 2026
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1.
Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioners.

2.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate
General
for
the
State
of
Uttarakhand.
3.
Since the issue involved in these
petitions is identical, therefore, these are
being heard and decided together by this
common judgment. However, for brevity,
facts of WPSS No. 936 of 2026 alone are
being considered and discussed here.
4.
Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Teacher
(Science)
in
a
Government Primary School in District
Chamoli on 04.10.2024 and she was put
on probation for two years. She made an
application
for
mutual
transfer
on
26.05.2025, wherein she requested that
she be transferred to Kashipur, where
she belongs. The
request
made
by
petitioner was turned down on the
ground
that
her
application
is
not
complete.

5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner is aggrieved by
letter
dated
31.01.2026
issued
by
Director
General,
School
Education,
whereby a direction has been issued to
identify recently appointed teachers who
have sought transfer prior to completion
of the period of probation.

6. Perusal of said letter issued by
Director General indicates that due to
request for transfer made by recently appointed teachers, unnecessary hindrance is being caused in departmental work, and further that such request is in violation of the Conduct Rules.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to letter dated 19.02.2026 issued by Director, Elementary Education to District Education Officers of various Districts, whereby instruction has been issued to identify teachers, who have made
request for transfer before completing probation period and also to take necessary action against such teachers.
8. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that petitioner does not have any_locus standi_to challenge inter
departmental letters; no prejudice is caused to petitioner by inter departmental letters dated 31.01.2026 & 19.02.2026. He submits that petitioner can approach this Court only when some disciplinary action is taken against him or some punishment is imposed, but nothing of the sort has happened as yet; therefore, merely because teachers who made request for transfer before completing probation period are being identified does not give any cause of action to the petitioners to approach this Court.
9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since no legal injury has been
caused to the petitioners by letter dated 31.01.2026 and 19.02.2026, therefore,

6.
Perusal of said letter issued by

Director General indicates that due to

request for transfer made by recently
appointed
teachers,
unnecessary
hindrance
is
being
caused
in
departmental work, and further that such
request is in violation of the Conduct
Rules.

7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
has
also
referred
to
letter
dated
19.02.2026
issued
by
Director,
Elementary
Education
to
District
Education Officers of various Districts,
whereby instruction has been issued to
identify
teachers,
who
have
made

request for transfer before completing
probation
period
and
also
to
take
necessary action against such teachers.

8.
Learned State Counsel, however,
submits that petitioner does not have
any_locus standi_to challenge inter

departmental letters; no prejudice is
caused
to
petitioner
by
inter
departmental letters dated 31.01.2026 &
19.02.2026. He submits that petitioner
can approach this Court only when some
disciplinary action is taken against him or
some
punishment
is
imposed,
but
nothing of the sort has happened as yet;
therefore, merely because teachers who
made
request
for
transfer
before
completing probation period are being
identified does not give any cause of
action to the petitioners to approach this
Court.

9.
This Court finds substance in the
submission
made
by
learned
State
Counsel. Since no legal injury has been

caused to the petitioners by letter dated
31.01.2026 and 19.02.2026, therefore,

Mansi v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansi v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Shyama Joshi Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies

Preeti Vs State of Uttarakhand

Yamuna Datt Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pankaj Kumar Thapliyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Soniya Bhandari Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anupriya Raj Vs State of Uttarakhand