High Court · 2025

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that paragraph-5 (iii) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 clearly provides for an exemption to such a Government Servant whose children are studying. He has also adverted to the certificate dated 02.07.2025 issued by the City Montessori Inter College, Aliganj, Lucknow to submit that petitioner's daughter is currently a student of Class XII for the Academic Session 2025-26 and would be appearing in the Board Examination shortly and therefore, petitioner's transfer would adversely affect her studies. Learned counsel has also adverted to judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this case in the Case of Madhubala versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.20 of 2025 which was upheld in Special Appeal No. 41 of 2025 and Special Appeal No. 7392 of 2025 thereagainst has also been rejected vide order dated 20.03.2025.

4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 15.07.2025, which are taken on record and submits that petitioner has been transferred since he has been posted in the same district for last ten years w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and as per the transfer policy was found eligible as per merit marks for being transferred. It is also submitted that petitioner does not have any vested right for continued posting in a particular place. He has also adverted to judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam versus State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 7371 of 2025 and Amit Mishra versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 7292 of 2025 to buttress his submissions.

5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that primary ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner pertains to impediment in studies of his daughter due to impugned transfer order since she is currently a student of Class XII and would be taken her Board Examinations shortly. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that his wife is also a Government Servant posted in District Hardoi while petitioner was looking after his daughter in District Lucknow.

6. The certificate issued by the college concerned clearly certifies petitioner's daughter being a student of Class XII for the Academic Session 2025-26 and definitely would be taking her Board Examinations in sometime in the early part of 2026. The said aspect has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhubala (supra) placing reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and others versus O. Karuppa Thevan and another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666. The aforesaid judgment has thereafter been upheld in Special Appeal and Special Leave Petition as indicated hereinabove with challenge thereto being negatived.

7. The judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education (supra) enunciates as follows:- "2. The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs."

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The impugned order has rejected petitioner's representation primarily on the ground of he is being posted for more than 10 years in the current district and was, therefore, found eligible for transfer in terms of merit list prepared. It has also been stated that petitioner failed to apply online or give any preferences or options at the time when such option was available to him.

10. However, the aforesaid aspect would lose relevance in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated hereinabove particularly since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner's daughter is current studying in Class XII. Learned State Counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam and Amit Mishra (supra). However, evidently the same are inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam (supra), the ground taken challenging transfer was with regard to illness of father and son of the petitioner therein whereas in the case of Amit Mishra (supra), ground taken was with regard to couple posting and was definitely not pertaining to progeny studying in a vital class such as XII.

11. In view discussion made hereinabove and particularly in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders dated 15.06.2025 and 09.07.2025 so far as relates to petitioner shall remain in abeyance till passing of fresh orders pertaining to relieving of petitioner after the Board Examinations of Class XII are over.

12. The petitioner shall give an undertaking to the opposite party no. 4 i.e. Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate, U.P. Lucknow within a period of two weeks from today to the fact that he shall join at the transferred place of posting immediately upon conclusion of the last examination of his daughter i.e. preferable by the end of May, 2026 without any demur. It is also provided that once the Board Examinations are over, petitioner shall join at the transferred place without raising any further dispute.

13. With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that paragraph-5 (iii) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 clearly provides for an exemption to such a Government Servant whose children are studying. He has also adverted to the certificate dated 02.07.2025 issued by the City Montessori Inter College, Aliganj, Lucknow to submit that petitioner's daughter is currently a student of Class XII for the Academic Session 2025-26 and would be appearing in the Board Examination shortly and therefore, petitioner's transfer would adversely affect her studies. Learned counsel has also adverted to judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Bench of this case in the Case of Madhubala versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No.20 of 2025 which was upheld in Special Appeal No. 41 of 2025 and Special Appeal No. 7392 of 2025 thereagainst has also been rejected vide order dated 20.03.2025.

4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 15.07.2025, which are taken on record and submits that petitioner has been transferred since he has been posted in the same district for last ten years w.e.f. 01.07.2015 and as per the transfer policy was found eligible as per merit marks for being transferred. It is also submitted that petitioner does not have any vested right for continued posting in a particular place. He has also adverted to judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam versus State of U.P. and another, Writ-A No. 7371 of 2025 and Amit Mishra versus State of U.P. and others, Writ-A No. 7292 of 2025 to buttress his submissions.

5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that primary ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner pertains to impediment in studies of his daughter due to impugned transfer order since she is currently a student of Class XII and would be taken her Board Examinations shortly. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that his wife is also a Government Servant posted in District Hardoi while petitioner was looking after his daughter in District Lucknow.

6. The certificate issued by the college concerned clearly certifies petitioner's daughter being a student of Class XII for the Academic Session 2025-26 and definitely would be taking her Board Examinations in sometime in the early part of 2026. The said aspect has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Madhubala (supra) placing reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and others versus O. Karuppa Thevan and another, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666. The aforesaid judgment has thereafter been upheld in Special Appeal and Special Leave Petition as indicated hereinabove with challenge thereto being negatived.

7. The judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education (supra) enunciates as follows:- "2. The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of the fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effected during mid-academic term. Although there is no such rule, we are of the view that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect the transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs."

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The impugned order has rejected petitioner's representation primarily on the ground of he is being posted for more than 10 years in the current district and was, therefore, found eligible for transfer in terms of merit list prepared. It has also been stated that petitioner failed to apply online or give any preferences or options at the time when such option was available to him.

10. However, the aforesaid aspect would lose relevance in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court as indicated hereinabove particularly since there is no dispute with regard to the fact that petitioner's daughter is current studying in Class XII. Learned State Counsel has placed reliance on judgments rendered in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam and Amit Mishra (supra). However, evidently the same are inapplicable in the present facts and circumstances since in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gautam (supra), the ground taken challenging transfer was with regard to illness of father and son of the petitioner therein whereas in the case of Amit Mishra (supra), ground taken was with regard to couple posting and was definitely not pertaining to progeny studying in a vital class such as XII.

11. In view discussion made hereinabove and particularly in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned orders dated 15.06.2025 and 09.07.2025 so far as relates to petitioner shall remain in abeyance till passing of fresh orders pertaining to relieving of petitioner after the Board Examinations of Class XII are over.

12. The petitioner shall give an undertaking to the opposite party no. 4 i.e. Director, Internal Accounts and Audit Directorate, U.P. Lucknow within a period of two weeks from today to the fact that he shall join at the transferred place of posting immediately upon conclusion of the last examination of his daughter i.e. preferable by the end of May, 2026 without any demur. It is also provided that once the Board Examinations are over, petitioner shall join at the transferred place without raising any further dispute.

13. With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 17.7.2025 Satish SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench