Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44934 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8362 of 2025 Petitioner :- Principal, R.D. Inter College, Suchittganj, Dist. Ayodhya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priya Singh,Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State No.1 to 5 and Shri Akhilesh Pandey, Advocate who files vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.7. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 27.06.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby respondent No.7 has been transferred to R.D. Inter College, Suchittganj, Ayodhya. Also under challenge is the consequential permission-approval dated 10.07.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, issued by D.I.O.S. Ayodhya permitting the respondent No.7 to take charge of the Institution. Further challenge is to the consequential permission-approval dated 14.07.2025 and 17.07.2025, copies of which are Annexure-3 & 4 issued by D.I.O.S. Ayodhya. Another prayer is for mandamus not to permit or enforce the joining or continuation of respondent No.7 in the Institution. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no Committee of Management rather an authorized controller has been appointed. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel that the instant petition being filed by the Principal of the Institution would not be maintainable and in case Committee of Management is not functional as such it is the authorized controller who is looking after the functions on behalf of the Committee of Management should have approached this Court in case it was aggrieved by the said order. 5. Responding to the said preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that authorized controller is not interested in challenging the order of transfer. Further placing reliance on Regulation 10 of the Chapter 1 (Part 2) of Regulations under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Head Master or the Principal is solely responsible and has necessary powers for the internal management and discipline of his institution as such the Principal is perfectly empowered to file a petition on behalf of the Institution. 6. Aforesaid argument of Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be fallacious and misconceived and hence rejected. 7. The reason is that a perusal of the Regulation 10 indicates that the Headmaster or the Principal shall be solely responsible and shall have necessary powers for the internal management and discipline of his institution including admissions and withdrawals of students and their punishment including expulsion etc., maintenance of service books and character rolls of teachers, clerks, librarians etc., as well as control and administration of all Boys Funds etc. Nowhere does the Regulation 10 empower the Principal of the Institution to interfere or have any role in the posting and transfer of Teachers. Nothing stopped the makers of the Regulations from incorporating the aforesaid power also in case the makers of the Regulations were of the view that the Principal should have some role in the transfer and posting of the teachers. 8. Considering the aforesaid this Court does not find that the Principal has got any power to file a writ petition with regard to posting and transfer of a teacher. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel stands upheld. The writ petition stands dismissed. 10. However, this order will not preclude the Committee of Management as and when it is constituted to challenge the transfer order of the respondent No.7 if permissible and admissible under law. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench