Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:100885 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8613 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Upadhayay And 11 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant Shukla,Ram Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- " (i) To call for the records and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing Clause 7 of the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 (Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) issued by respondent no.3. (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned authorities to forward the transfer papers of the petitioners to the Directorate/Respondent No. 5 at the earliest in accordance with law. (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned authorities to process the transfer application of the petitioners without being fettered by Clause-7 of the impugned order dated 07.06.2025 issued by respondent no.3 at the earliest in accordance with law. " 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that petitioners are working on the post of Assistant Teachers (L.T. Grade) in respective subjects and petitioner no.1 is Lecturer in Commerce. The details of the petitioners working on the post as Assistant Teachers as well as Lecturer are stated in paragraph no. 5 to 16 of the paper book. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioners have applied for transfer as per the procedure prescribed under Chapter-III, Regulations 55 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 on several dates as mentioned in the paragraphs referred above. It is further submitted that their applications for transfer under the aforesaid scheme has not been considered and no order has been passed yet due to the impugned government order, particularly paragraph no.7 of the said order which is appended as Annexure No.1 with the paper book. Learned counsel further submitted that the said impugned order is contrary to the procedure prescribed under Chapter-III, Regulations 55 of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and vehemently submitted that Court may issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the paragraph no. 7 of the said impugned order which is introduced by the State without following the procedure and without application of mind. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners and perused the scheme and impugned order particularly paragraph no.7 of the said order. 4. Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of State in advance notice and relying on the same impugned order submitted that applications which have been filed by the petitioners are contrary to the paragraph no.3 of the said impugned order which clearly states that no off line application will be accepted for the transfer and thereafter only the on-line application shall be entertained by the State. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred another government order which is appended as Annexure No.14 to the writ petition and submitted that there are no dispute regarding the off-line submission of application. 6. Learned Standing Counsel relied paragraph no.3 of the said impugned order but he has clarified that since the State has not been able to make proper arrangement for accepting the applications on-line, therefore, the government has issued another order after taking into consideration the difficulties made by the petitioners and stated in the said government order that since portal are not working for enabling the petitioners for applying on-line applications, therefore, they may also apply for off-line. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State after taking into consideration the Annexure No.14 has conceded that there are no bar for consideration of the applications submitted by the petitioners off- line and prayed for four weeks' time for deciding the applications which are pending with the department of Directorate of Education, if there is no legal impediment. 7. Heard Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, leaned Standing Counsel. 8. After considering the contention made in the petition as well as documents which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners as there are no objection by learned counsel appearing on behalf of State, the office of Directorate of Education are directed to decide the applications of the petitioners after taking into consideration the entire facts as stated in the petition in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. 9. The petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court, if the said direction has not been complied with within the period as stated above. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly disposed off. Order Date :- 1.7.2025 AKT (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad