Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio

“Government Order Dated 14.11.2025 Is Supplemental and Curative – Not Arbitrary or Ultra Vires”, In a significant pronouncement delivered on 17.02.2026, the Allahabad High Court upheld the validity of the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 providing for adjustment and redeployment of Assistant Teachers and Headmasters in Basic Schools to maintain the prescribed pupil–teacher ratio under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held that the impugned Government Order was issued “in furtherance of the statutory mandate” of the 2009 Act and to effectuate the constitutional guarantee under Article 21-A. The Court ruled that the policy cannot be termed arbitrary merely because it operates mid-session, as the obligation to maintain the pupil–teacher ratio is a “continuing one.”

While rejecting the challenge to the Government Order, the Court directed that individual grievances be examined by the District Level Committee through reasoned and speaking orders.

“Obligation to Maintain Student–Teacher Ratio Is Continuing and Cannot Be Frozen in July”

The petitioners, serving as Assistant Teachers and Headmasters in Junior and Senior Basic Schools, had assailed the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 and the consequential transfer orders issued in December 2025. Their principal contention was that Rule 21 of the Uttar Pradesh RTE Rules, 2011 contemplates annual review before July and that once the rationalisation exercise had been completed in July 2025 pursuant to the earlier Government Order dated 23.05.2025, a fresh exercise in November amounted to arbitrariness and violation of statutory rules.

Rejecting this argument, the Court held that Rule 21 cannot be interpreted as imposing an absolute embargo on corrective measures beyond July. The judgment makes it clear that:

“The obligation of the State to ensure uninterrupted education and compliance with the student–teacher ratio is a continuing one.”

The Court observed that if subsequent developments such as retirement, promotion, leave, or imbalance in enrolment create shortage or surplus, the State cannot remain powerless merely because July has passed.

“Policy Decisions in Education Fall Within Executive Domain – Courts Do Not Sit in Appeal”

The petitioners had argued that the Government Order dated 14.11.2025 was skeletal, lacked procedural safeguards, and left unguided discretion to district authorities. It was also contended that transfers were effected without counselling, options, or publication of consolidated surplus and deficit lists.

The Court, however, reiterated settled principles of judicial restraint in policy matters. Relying on precedents including S.L. Abbas, Gobardhan Lal, Balco Employees’ Union, Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., the Court emphasized:

“In matters of policy and administrative adjustment, particularly in the field of education, the scope of judicial review is limited.”

The Court further observed that:

“Transfer and adjustment of teachers is an incidence of service, and no employee can claim a vested right to continue at a particular place of posting.”

Unless mala fides, statutory violation, or demonstrable arbitrariness is established, courts would not interfere.

“Government Order Is Not Repugnant to Earlier Order – It Is Corrective in Character”

A central plank of the petitioners’ argument was that the November Government Order contradicted the earlier Government Order dated 23.05.2025, which had provided an option-based rationalisation exercise.

After comparing the two, the Court clarified that the earlier order was “an enabling and facilitative measure,” whereas the later order was “comprehensive, mandatory and corrective in character.”

The Court held:

“The Government Order dated 14.11.2025 cannot be construed as inconsistent with or repugnant to the Government Order dated 23.05.2025. Rather, it is supplemental and curative in nature.”

Thus, the later order was issued to remedy persisting imbalances and to ensure strict compliance with Section 25 of the 2009 Act.

“Article 21-A and Section 25 of the 2009 Act Must Guide Administrative Action”

The judgment places constitutional emphasis on Article 21-A, which guarantees free and compulsory education to children aged 6 to 14 years. Section 25 of the 2009 Act mandates maintenance of the prescribed pupil–teacher ratio in each school.

The Court held that a policy framed to implement this legislative command and to advance the larger public interest of students cannot, by its very nature, be termed arbitrary.

“A policy framed to implement a legislative command and to advance the larger public interest of students cannot, by its very nature, be termed arbitrary.”

The Court further observed that individual hardship or inconvenience must yield to constitutional and statutory obligations flowing from Article 21-A.

“Arbitrariness Lies Not in Absence of Power, But in Improper Implementation”

Although the Government Order was upheld, the Court did not ignore the concerns regarding its implementation. It noted that arbitrariness may arise where consolidated and verified data is not prepared or where categories such as Shiksha Mitras are improperly included contrary to settled law.

The Court clarified: “The issue is not of non-existence of procedure, but of non-compliance therewith.”

Administrative discretion, the Court cautioned, must remain within the bounds of fairness and objective criteria such as student strength and sanctioned posts.

“Verified Data Is Essential – UDISE Portal Must Reflect Authentic Information”

A significant aspect of the judgment concerns data accuracy. The Court observed that it was not clearly discernible whether the prescribed criteria, including maintenance of pupil–teacher ratio and identification of surplus and deficit institutions, were scrupulously adhered to based on verified data.

“When administrative action, though ostensibly lawful, results in systemic imbalance due to factual infirmities, limited judicial scrutiny becomes imperative.”

The authorities were directed to verify, rectify and update authentic data on the UDISE portal and undertake redeployment strictly in accordance with the 2009 Act.

Final Directions of the Court

While rejecting the challenge to the Government Order dated 14.11.2025, the Court issued calibrated directions to balance administrative necessity with fairness.

Each petitioner was permitted to submit a separate representation before the District Level Committee within one week. The Committee was directed to examine objections in light of applicable rules and the mandate of the 2009 Act and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month. Status quo was directed to be maintained for one month or until decision, whichever was earlier.

The Allahabad High Court has reaffirmed that the constitutional mandate under Article 21-A and the statutory obligation under Section 25 of the RTE Act override administrative rigidity and individual posting preferences. While maintaining judicial restraint in policy matters, the Court simultaneously insisted upon transparency, verified data, and procedural fairness in implementation.

The ruling stands as a reminder that educational policy, when rooted in constitutional and statutory mandates, will not be lightly interfered with — but its execution must withstand the test of reasonableness and fairness under Article 14.

Date of Decision: 17.02.2026