Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49587-DB Chief Justice’s Court Case:- SPECIAL APPEAL No. – 273 of 2025 Appellant :- Principal R.D. Inter College, Suchittganj, Distt. Ayodhya and another Respondent :- State of U.P. through Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 6 others Counsel for Appellant :- Priya Singh, Sharad Pathak Counsel for Respondent :- V.P. Nag (S.C.), Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Hon’ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon’ble Jaspreet Singh,J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.08.2025 passed in Writ - A No. 8362 of 2025, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition, filed by the appellant against order dated 27.06.2025, whereby respondent No. 7 was transferred to R.D. Inter College, has been dismissed. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that opposite party No. 7 was transferred vide order dated 27.06.2025 by Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Prayagraj to the petitioner's college and on 10.07.2025, the District Inspector of Schools ('DIOS'), Ayodhya granted consequential permission to respondent No. 7 to join at the college. On 11.07.2025, respondent No. 7 was relieved by the Manager and Principal of his previous school at Sonaisa and on 12.07.2025, he submitted joining letter to the Authorized Controller of the petitioner's college. 3. The petitioner, principal of the college, submitted representation to DIOS, Ayodhya raising objections against the transfer, however, the DIOS issued letters to the petitioner's college to take joining of opposite party No. 7 and also required the Authorized Controller regarding this joining and despite the petitioner's again writing to the DIOS, when nothing was acceded, the present petition was filed seeking to question the order of transfer. 4. Before learned Single Judge, preliminary objection pertaining to the locus standi of the appellant in challenging the order was raised. It was 2 submitted that filing of the petition at the instance of Principal of institution would not be maintainable and as in the present case, the Committee of Management of the college is not functional, it is the Authorized Controller, who alone can approach the Court, in case, he was aggrieved of the order. 5. The appellant relied on Regulation 10 of the Regulations under the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 ('the Regulations') and claimed that as the Principal is responsible for the internal management and discipline of the institution, looking to the conduct of respondent No. 7, he was justified and had locus standi to file the petition. 6. Learned Single Judge, with reference to the provisions of Regulation 10 of the Regulations, came to the conclusion that under Regulation 10 of the Regulations, the Principal has no power to file a writ petition with regard to posting and transfer of teachers and upholding the preliminary objection, dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that in the present case, though the transfer in question could have been challenged by a Committee of Management, however, as for over last 6 years, the Committee of Management is not in existence and an Authorized Controller has been appointed and as the Authorized Controller, who is a Government Officer, i.e., Assistant District Inspector of Schools is under the DIOS, is not interested in questioning the transfer. 8. Submissions have been made that the transfer in question is against the interest of the institution and therefore, the petitioner, as Principal of the school, is an affected party and can maintain the petition, rejection thereof is not justified. Further submissions have been made that out of the sanctioned strength of 36 LT Grade teachers, presently, 18 teachers are working out of which, already 6 teachers are of social science and therefore, transferring respondent No. 7 to the institution, who is a teacher of social 3 science, even otherwise is not justified. 9. It was claimed that petitioner is an affected party and therefore, could have maintained the writ petition. Reliance was placed on M.S. Jayaraj Vs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others : (2000) 7 SCC 552 and Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2001) 4 SCC 734. 10. Counsel for respondent No. 7, with reference to the documents dated 17.07.2025 (Annexure No. 4), pointed out that the transfer has taken place in accordance with the Online Transfer Policy, 2025 of the State Government, against a vacant post of teacher in social science and after no objection, given by the Authorized Controller. Submissions have been made that the appellant has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the order passed by the respondents and therefore, irrespective of the claims made, he is not entitled to maintain the petition and the appeal, therefore, deserves dismissal. 11. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the record indicates that the order impugned, transferring respondent No. 7 to the petitioner's institution, has been passed after adopting due procedure and on ‘No Objection Certificate’ issued by the Authorized Controller in this regard. Several pleas, raised by the appellant, essentially pertain to the nature and/or the alleged conduct of respondent No. 7 claiming him to be an undesirous person for the petitioner's institution, the appellant except for the said allegations, has not pointed out any legal infirmity in the passing of the order by the respondents. 13. So far as the claim made pertaining to the right of the petitioner under Regulation 10 of the Regulations is concerned, it only makes the Principal responsible and confers power for the internal management and discipline of his institution including admission and withdrawal of students and their punishment including expulsion, etc., maintenance of service books and 4 character rolls of teachers, clerks, librarians, etc. as well as control of administration of Boys Funds, etc. Apparently, the said Regulation does not confer any power on the petitioner insofar as the appointment and transfer of the teachers to the institution is concerned, which power lies with the Committee of Management and in its absence, with the Authorized Controller under the Act. 14. In view thereof, the challenge laid, apparently, has no substance and the determination, made by learned Single Judge, cannot be faulted. 15. So far as the judgment in the case of M.S. Jayaraj (supra) is concerned, therein also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the locus standi of the petitioner therein, on finding violation of law and not in abstract. Similarly, in the case of Vinoy Kumar (supra), the Court laid down that the Court can exercise jurisdiction in cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, apparently, none of the parameters, laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, are fulfilled in the present case. 16. Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Mukesh Pal (Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench