Transfer Is Incidence Of Service: Allahabad High Court Upholds Mid-Session RTE-Based Redeployment, Flags Mechanical Inclusion Of Shiksha Mitras
Court holds judicial review is limited; directs individual grievances to be placed before District-Level Committee constituted under the 14-11-2025 G.O.
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the Government Order dated 14-11-2025 providing for redeployment of Assistant Teachers and Headmasters mid-session, across the State to maintain the prescribed pupil-teacher ratio under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. It held that the impugned G.O. was issued to effectuate the statutory mandate under Section 25 of the RTE Act and to secure the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India.
While upholding the G.O., the Court noted the submission that in certain districts Shiksha Mitras and contractual instructors were included as regular teachers while identifying surplus strength. Referring to earlier binding precedents of the Court, it observed that mechanical inclusion of Shiksha Mitras for determining surplus strength and consequent displacement of regularly appointed teachers would not be legally sustainable. However, the Court clarified that such issues are fact-specific and must be examined on a case-to-case basis.
The Court also held that any grievance regarding hardship, incorrect data, improper inclusion/exclusion, or arbitrary identification as surplus must be placed before the District-Level Committee constituted under the impugned G.O..
Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed, “The grievance that teachers, who had joined pursuant to earlier order dated 17-07-2025, are being repatriated without assigning reasons is equally devoid of substance. The impugned action is neither punitive nor stigmatic but is a consequence of a general policy decision taken in public interest. In such circumstances, individual notice or assignment of personal reasons is not a legal requirement…It is well settled that transfer and adjustment of teachers is an incidence of service, and no employee can claim a vested right to continue at a particular place of posting. In the absence of any pleading or proof of mala fides, arbitrariness, or violation of statutory provisions, the Court finds no ground to interfere”.
“In matters of policy and administrative adjustment, particularly in the field of education, the scope of judicial review is limited. Unless the policy is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, mala fide, or in clear violation of statutory provisions, this Court would be slow to interfere. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case…Mere inconvenience, hardship, or personal difficulty of the employee does not furnish a legally sustainable ground for interference”, it further observed.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Khare appeared for the petitioners and Advocate Umesh Chandra Kesarwani appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, who were Assistant Teachers and Headmasters in Junior and Senior Basic Schools, challenged the G.O. dated 14-11-2025 and the consequential transfer/posting orders dated 31-12-2025.
It was contended that a complete redeployment exercise had already been conducted pursuant to an earlier G.O. dated 23-05-2025, and subsequently the teachers had joined their transferred institutions in July 2025.
Furthermore, the November exercise amounted to a third round of adjustments within the same academic session and that the impugned G.O. lacked procedural safeguards such as publication of surplus/deficit lists, seniority criteria, and counselling.
The State defended the action on the ground that Section 25 of the RTE Act mandates maintenance of the pupil-teacher ratio in every school and prohibits a situation where institutions function without adequate teaching staff.
Now the Court observed that the obligation to maintain the prescribed pupil-teacher ratio is a continuing one and that Rule 21 of the U.P. RTE Rules, 2011, providing for annual review before July, does not create an absolute bar against corrective action thereafter.
“Thus, the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 cannot be construed as inconsistent with or repugnant to the Government Order dated 23.05.2025. Rather, it is supplemental and curative in nature, issued to remedy deficiencies that persisted under the earlier regime and to ensure effective and meaningful implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”, the Bench noted.
However, the Bench also noted, “The Court cannot remain oblivious to the fact that frequent transfers and readjustments, carried out without a transparent and data-driven exercise, have the potential to disrupt the academic environment and adversely impact the education of students, which is the paramount consideration under the Act of 2009. In order to bring quietus to the prevailing controversy and to restore administrative stability, it would be appropriate that objections be invited from the affected teachers within a stipulated time. Upon receipt of such objections, the Committee already constituted under the chairmanship of the concerned District Magistrate may examine the same in light of verified data relating to student strength and teacher availability, and thereafter pass reasoned and speaking orders in accordance with law”.
Cause Title: Arun Pratap Singh and 37 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:34786]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate.
Respondent: C.S.C., Umesh Chandra Kesarwani, Advocate.