( 2026:JHHC:29349 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 6432 of 2024 ---- Sudha Lakra aged about 40 yrs, W/o-Santosh Kumar Singh, D/o -Martin Lakra, R/o-Mahuadanr, Oraon Toli, P.O. & P.S. Latehar, District- Latehar. .......Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.Dhurwa, District - Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S- Dhurwa, Dist- Ranchi 4. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O: Dhurwa, P.S- Dhurwa, Dist-Ranchi. 5. District Education Officer, Ranchi, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Siksha Vibhag Parisar, P.O. Compound, P.S. Lower Bazar, Dist.- Ranchi .....Respondent(s) --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Singh, Advocate : Ms. Arpita Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Prabhakar, AC to GP-III --- 03/ Dated: 28.09.2026 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein to quash the notification no. 2907 dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure-7) and further to direct the respondent to pass a reasoned order as against the claim of the petitioner for transfer form Upgraded High School Morwaikala, Latehar to Ranchi district on the ground of ( 2026:JHHC:29349 ) spouse (husband) working as Assistant Professor (Physics) at Yogoda Satsanga Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is a policy of the Government to keep the spouses together for better administration; accordingly, the instant application may be disposed of by directing the respondents to revisit with the order; whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case wherein at para-21, it has been stated that since the marks of the petitioner was less than the other persons, therefore, her representation for transfer was rejected; however, Ld. State counsel fairly submits that the petitioner may approach again before the concerned respondent for her transfer at her spouse’s place as per the guidelines. 5. Having regard to the above, it is true that there is a guideline of the Government to keep the spouses together who are working with the State of Jharkhand; however, there are certain rules and regulations and since the petitioner marks was lesser than the other candidates, her request for transfer was rejected. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner However, even now she can approach the 4th Respondent, who shall revisit with the order because of the policy/guidelines of the Government that the husband and wife, if working at different place shall remain at the same place. 6. As a result, the instant application stands disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the 4th Respondent, who shall consider the claim of the petitioner for transfer strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulation. 7. Pending IA’s, if any also stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 28.09.2026 Abha/-