1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Navin Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in Composite School Todarpur, Block Simbhawali, District- Hapur and respondent No.5 is an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Saugarh, Block Garhmukteshwar, District- Hapur made online application for mutual intra district transfer in pursuance of a Government Order dated 20.01.2023.
3. It is a case of petitioner that subsequently on 30.09.2023, he made an application to withdraw his consent for mutual intra district transfer and that he has still not submitted an affidavit as required.
4. A list of intra district transfer on mutual consent was published on 11.01.2024, whereby petitioner was shown to be transferred at Primary School Saugarh, Block Garhmukteshwar, District – Hapur while respondent No. 5 was shown to be transferred at Composite School Todarpur, Block Simbhawali, District- Hapur.
5. It is further case of petitioner that he wants to withdraw his request for mutual transfer due to unavoidable circumstances and his family conditions, however, meanwhile on basis of application of mutual transfer of petitioner and respondent No. 5 was approved by an order dated 20.01.2024. Accordingly, the Block Education Officer, Simbhawali relieved the petitioner from his original school with a direction to join at transferred school and according to case of petitioner he under protest joined that at transferred place i.e. at Primary School Saugarh, Block Garhmukteshwar, District- Hapur on 23.01.2024.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that subsequently on 24.01.2024, the Secretary of U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj addressed to all District Basic Education Officer by way of a Circular that those teachers who do not want relief from his school on basis of their request of mutual transfer may submit representation. Accordingly, petitioner filed representation before the District Level Committee, despite that mutual transfer was already carried out and petitioner and respondent No.5 were transferred accordingly, and they both have joined at their respective transferred place.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that District Level Committee has taken a decision and mutual transfer of petitioner and respondent No.5 was cancelled and they were directed to join at their original place and such order was communicated by BSA to Secretary U.P. Basic Education Officer, Hapur by a communication dated 17.01.2025.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that thereafter petitioner was relieved from transferred school and he submitted that he joined at his original school on 01.03.2024. In the aforesaid background, respondent No.5 has preferred a writ petition bearing No. 212 of 2025 along with other person, wherein petitioner was arrayed one of respondent, wherein a relief was sought that petitioner be transferred in terms of mutual transfer order to original school of petitioner, however, no effective order was passed therein.
9. In the aforesaid circumstances, District Basic Education Officer by impugned order dated 21.01.2025 directed that petitioner and respondent No.5 be relieved from their original school and be directed to join at their respective transferred school and accordingly, petitioner was relieved and he again joined at transferred school on 21.01.2025.
10. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aforesaid impugned order was contrary to decision taken by District Level Committee. The impugned order was passed only on ground that a writ petition was filed by respondent No.5 despite no order was passed in that writ petition.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that issue whether after submitting application for mutual transfer any of applicant could withdraw, has already been considered by this Court in Km Sweta Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2024:AHC:39467, wherein such liberty was declined. For reference said order is reproduced hereinafter :
“ 1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shrestha Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner cannot be allowed to sail on two boats. On one hand, she has taken advantage of transfer policy to apply for mutual transfer which was accepted and now she wants to resile from it by giving excuse, which is not permissible. Once an order has been passed on application for mutual transfer that cannot be withdrawn. There is no circumstance exist to interfere with impugned order.
3. However, petitioner will have liberty to join at transferred place on commencement of new academic session since present academic session is about to end. In case of default, concerned respondent is at liberty to take action against petitioner in accordance with law.
4. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.”
12. Learned counsel further submitted that challenge to it before Division Bench of this Court was rejected in Shubhangi Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, 2024:AHC:71644-DB. The order passed therein is reproduced hereinafter :-
“1. Heard Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsdl for the petitioner/appellant and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present special appeal has been preferred assailing the validity of the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by leanrned Single Judge in Writ-A No.3782of 2024 (Shubhangi Rastogi v. State of U.P. & Ors.) as well as the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 3418 of 2024 (Km. Sweta vs. State of U.P. and others). The order dated 05.03.2024 which is quoted as under for ready reference:-
"1. Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shrestha Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondents.
2. Petitioner cannot be allowed to sail on two boats. On one hand, she has taken advantage of transfer policy to apply for mutual transfer which was accepted and now she wants to resile from it by giving excuse, which is not permissible. Once an order has been passed on application for mutual transfer that cannot be withdrawn. There is no circumstance exist to interfere with impugned order.
3. However, petitioner will have liberty to join at transferred place on commencement of new academic session since present academic session is about to end. In case of default, concerned respondent is at liberty to take action against petitioner in accordance with law.
4. With aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of."
3. After substantial arguments, the Court declines to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is well considered order under the mutual transfer policy.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner states that the present appeal may be dismissed as not presse
5. In view of above, the special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not pressed. “
13. Learned counsel further also referred a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chitra Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, 2025:AHC:32900 that in similar circumstances, no relief was granted. Learned counsel further referred that on basis of judgment passed by this Court and Division Bench, the Secretary of U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj has communicated all the District Basci Education Officer by a communication dated 17.05.2024 that order passed by this Court as upheld by Divsional Court, be strictly followed and teachers who have been transferred on basis of their intra mutual district transfer application be directed to join at their transferred school.
14. I have considered above submission and perused the record. It is not under dispute that applications filed by petitioner and respondent No.5 for mutual district transfer was accepted and respective order of transfer was passed and they have joined at respective transferred place also, therefore, the petitioner was not eligible to file any objections since the objection could be filed only when transfer orders were not executed.
15. The said factual aspect was ignored and District Level Committee proceeded to decide the representation and transfer order of petitioner and respondent was set aside. The said order was, therefore, beyond jurisdiction. The Court also takes note that meanwhile this Court has passed the order Km Sweta (supra) which was upheld by Division Bench that once a consent is given for intra district mutual transfer, the same cannot be subsequently withdrawn. The aforesaid judgment was later on followed by other co-ordinate Bench also.
16. The Court also takes note subsequently on basis of judgments passed in Km Sweta (supra), the respondent U.P. Basic Education Board has come up with a fresh circular that mutual transfer orders be strictly followed and, therefore, since the impugned order was passed on basis of order passed by this Court and communication made by Board, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order. Subsequent Communication is also not under challenge in present writ petition.
17. As referred above, the petitioner has already joined at transferred place and correspondent respondent No.5 joined at his transferred place, therefore, petitioner has no case to withdraw his consent for mutual intra district transfer and since the orders have already been executed and position of law is also against him, therefore, the relief sought cannot be granted. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner and respondent No.5 shall join at their respective places of transfer.
