Pragati Srivastava vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the implementation of Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008, is not dependent on the framing of a government policy. The Court reasoned that while the government can frame a policy, the absence of one does not negate the applicability of the Rule itself, which was made under the Basic Education Act, 1972. The Court found the respondent's contention that a policy was required to be misconceived. The Court directed Respondent No. 5, the Director, Basic Education, U.P. at Lucknow, to consider the petitioner's request for transfer from Chandauli to Mirzapur on a priority basis within two months of receiving the order. The Court further directed that if a vacancy was not available at the specific school requested, the transfer should be considered to any nearby school. The application was explicitly stated not to be rejected on the ground of the absence of a policy.

Facts

The petitioner, Pragati Srivastava, an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School in District Chandauli, sought a transfer to a Primary School in District Mirzapur. She had married Mr. Vivek Kumar Srivastava on April 19, 2022, who is a permanent resident of District Mirzapur and employed in the GST Department there. The petitioner's father-in-law and mother-in-law are elderly and unwell, with no one else in the family to care for them. The petitioner argued that living with her husband and in-laws in Mirzapur would allow her to provide care and continue her duties as a teacher. The respondent argued that inter-district transfers from an aspirational district (Chandauli) to a non-aspirational district (Mirzapur) are generally not permissible and no policy exists for such transfers.

Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers)(Posting) Rules, 2008, which permits inter-district transfers for female teachers to their husband's or in-laws' district under special circumstances, is dependent on the framing of a government policy. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Rule 8(2)(d) of the Rules, 2008, specifically allows for inter-district transfers of female teachers to the district of their husband's or in-laws' residence under special circumstances. She argued that her situation, involving marriage to a resident of Mirzapur and the need to care for her elderly and ailing in-laws, constituted such special circumstances. She relied on the text of Rule 8(2)(d) to support her claim. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that inter-district transfers from an aspirational district (Chandauli) to a non-aspirational district (Mirzapur) are generally not permissible, and that no policy had been framed by the government in this regard, implying that such transfers could not be made without a specific policy.