The Supreme Court has set aside an Allahabad High Court order in a contempt case concerning a woman primary school teacher’s request for an inter-district transfer from Bahraich to Lucknow, holding that the rejection of her request was justified by the applicable transfer criteria and the shortage of teachers at her school.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran allowed the appeal filed by the Secretary of the Board of Basic Education, Prayagraj, on October 5, 2026. The Court found no contempt in the authority’s decision and closed the contempt proceedings.
Background
The dispute arose from a direction issued in a writ appeal on September 26, 2023, requiring consideration of the teacher’s transfer claim under Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008.
The rule permits consideration of inter-district transfer applications from women teachers, in special circumstances, to the district where their husbands or in-laws reside, despite the general restriction on transfers during the first five years.
The teacher stated that she was living alone in Bahraich with her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter, while her husband and in-laws lived in Lucknow. Her transfer request, however, was rejected on two grounds: she had secured 12 marks against the minimum cut-off of 22, and her school faced a significant shortage of teachers.
The Supreme Court examined the authority’s order and noted that it had expressly referred to the applicable transfer rule. It also considered the staffing position at Composite School, Sikanderpur, in Mahsi development block of Bahraich district.
The school had 137 students in its primary section but only two teachers, whereas five were required under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The Court observed that transferring one of the two available teachers could disrupt students’ education. It held that the reasons given for rejecting the transfer request were justified.
Addressing the teacher’s family circumstances, the Court clarified that the special provision for women teachers did not create an automatic right to an inter-district transfer. It also noted that such a transfer involved a change of cadre, which a teacher could not claim as a matter of right.
The Court observed:
“Rule 8(2)(d) is only a relaxation insofar as woman employees are concerned, which cannot, however, result in jeopardizing the studies of the students. Every teacher should remember that the educational system is primarily for the students and not to further the career of the teachers or to enable convenient postings to the teachers.”
The Supreme Court found no justification for upholding the High Court’s order. It set aside the impugned order, closed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 236 of 2024 and allowed the appeal.
Case Details
- Case Title: Pratap Singh Baghel v. Akanksha Shukla
- Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5678 of 2025
- Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Decision Date: October 5, 2026
