Teacher-Student Ratio Norms Under RTE Act Can't Be Invoked To Challenge Teachers' Transfer Policy: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers have no inherent right of transfer under any statute, and that such rights as they have in the matter arise only from the transfer policy itself.It held that a district-wise Pupil-Teacher-Ratio (PTR) list prepared by the State only to work its policy for inter-district transfer of basic school teachers has nothing to do with the mandate of The...
The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers have no inherent right of transfer under any statute, and that such rights as they have in the matter arise only from the transfer policy itself.
It held that a district-wise Pupil-Teacher-Ratio (PTR) list prepared by the State only to work its policy for inter-district transfer of basic school teachers has nothing to do with the mandate of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, and cannot be tested against the Schedule to that Act.
Rule 8(2)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008 provides that in normal circumstances applications for inter-district transfer will not be entertained within five years of posting, though in special circumstances applications by female teachers may be entertained for the district where the husband or the in-laws reside.
Rule 21 of The Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 bars transfer of a teacher from one local area or district to another except on the request of or with the consent of the teacher, and in either case with the approval of the Board.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia held,
“Interestingly in the entire RTE Act, no rights flow in favour of the teachers and in fact, the duties of the teachers have been specified except to the effect that their service condition could not be detrimental to mandate of Section 23 of the Service Rules.”
“The decision with regard to transfer is neither emanating from the Rules, 2001 and the Service Rules, 1981. It is essentially a policy decision taken by the State for enabling the transfer of the categories specified in the Government Order.”
Petitioners were appointed as Assistant Teachers in schools run by the respondent authorities and assigned districts under the Posting Rules, their posts being non-transferable save as those Rules and the Service Rules permit. On 4th June 2026 the State Government issued a Government Order taking a policy decision to allow inter-district transfer of teachers in the academic session 2026-27 on humanitarian grounds and in special circumstances, under five heads. One of them provided that where both husband and wife are teachers in basic schools and one of them applies, the transfer may be made to the district where the pupil-teacher ratio is lower.
A further Government Order dated 22nd June 2026 clarified the earlier one, and the district-wise PTR list under challenge was annexed to it. The window for applying was thereafter extended to 5th August 2026.
The petitioners challenged the district-wise list as arbitrary and illegal. They argued that under the RTE Act and the Schedule to it the PTR must be maintained school-wise and class-wise, and that by working it out district-wise the State had cut down their ability to exercise the option given by the two Government Orders.
The Court observed that the RTE Act was enacted in furtherance of Article 21A of the Constitution, inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002. In Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had held that the object of the Act is not merely access to education but quality education, which can be secured only by maintaining the prescribed pupil-teacher ratio in accordance with the Schedule.
Going through the chapters of the Act, the Court held that it confers no rights on teachers, and the decision to permit transfer was not one emanating from the Rules but was a policy decision taken by the State for the categories specified in the Government Order. Since no inherent right flowed to the petitioners from any statute, it held that their rights in the matter were only those given by the policy decision of 4th June 2026.
“The list appended showing the PTR in various districts in any way has no concerned with the Schedule of the RTE Act or the mandate of the RTE Act. The same is only for the purpose of convinience of the State to determine as to which district either of the spouse can seek transfer and based upon the numbers of the teachers in the particular district, the transfer shall either be accepted or rejected.”
On the argument that the petitioners could not make an informed choice without knowing how many teachers were working in a district, the Court held that transfers were to be effected district-wise and not school-wise, and that even if a request were accepted, a teacher could claim consideration only for a district and not for a particular school.
“There is no error in the policy of the State Government warranting interference. The ground of linking of the claim of the petitioners with the Schedule under RTE Act, is misplaced and cannot be accepted.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court added a clarification that it “has not enrolled the list of PTR for the purpose of the requirement enumerated in the RTE Act”.
Case Title: Rishi Katiyar and 3 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Basic Education Lko. and 4 others