HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11116 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard Mr. J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 3, Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the online status which has shown rejection of the request of the petitioner for transfer. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher(Urdu) vide order dated 09.02.2018, thereafter, he joined on 10.02.2018 on the said post and subsequently, the respondent no. 3 has issued a transfer policy, whereafter, four members committee was constituted at the District level to take decision with respect to the request of transfer of the petitioner. He further submitted that the request was made by the petitioner for transfer, but without showing any reason, online decision was taken and it is mentioned as online information that his request for transfer is rejected. He argued that in fact the rejection of request of transfer of the petitioner, as per the transfer policy issued by the respondent themselves, no reasons have been assigned, therefore, the information/order would not stand on it's own legs. His further argument is that a writ petition is pending, instituted by the petitioner, wherein, an interim order has been passed while staying the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : J.B. Singh, Ranjeet Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ran Vijay Singh, Uday Veer Singh Mohd. Hassan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) adversarial order passed by the respondent authorities, therefore, adversarial order to the petitioner is not in existence, therefore, as per the transfer policy of 2024-25, there is no impediment with respect to consider the request of the petitioner for transfer. He also added that clause-5 of the transfer policy is only impediment which says that if there is any departmental proceeding is going on, the transfer can be considered after the same is concluded. He further submits that order impugned is against the settled proposition of law as is rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi -(1978) 1 SCC 405, therefore, submission is that the order impugned may be quashed and the authorities may be directed to consider the transfer of the petitioner afresh. Learned counsels appearing for the respondents have opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the appointment of the petitioner is under question and subsequently, an order was passed while terminating the services of the petitioner though, the fact remains that the same was assailed by the petitioner before this Court, wherein, this Court has passed the order, while staying the effect and operation of the termination order. He submits that the order has rightly been passed as the same has been passed while taking decision online, thus, there is no ambiguity in the order itself. He also submitted that time-schedule has already been over, therefore, there is hardship to consider the transfer of the petitioner in mid-session. Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it transpires that transfer request of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any reason which is an admitted fact between the parties. This Court has noticed that the adversarial order passed against the petitioner has been stayed by this court, therefore, there is no existence of any kind of administrative action against the petitioner as of now. So far as the contention made by Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, counsel for U.P. Basic Education Board, that this is transfer in mid-term cannot be considered, therefore, there is hardship to consider the transfer of the petitioner, but the question is that the fault is committed on part of the Basic Education Board and for the fault of Basic Education Board, why the petitioner would thrown to suffer, therefore, the said argument has no justification at all. Consequently, the one word decision 'rejected' taken by the authorities is hereby quashed. WRIA No. 11116 of 2025 2 Matter is relegated to the respondent no. 3/Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj, to consider the request of the petitioner regarding mutual transfer, in accordance with law, within period of four weeks, from the date of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is hereby disposed of. December 5, 2025 Mayank WRIA No. 11116 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench