Lucknow: The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench has held that primary school teachers seeking inter-district transfers cannot claim a right to be considered for posting in a particular school, ruling that such transfers under the state’s policy have to be considered district-wise.Upholding the state’s June 2026 transfer policy, the court also rejected the argument that the district-wise pupil-teacher ratio (PTR) prepared for the transfer exercise violated the Right to Education (RTE) Act.Justice Pankaj Bhatia dismissed a writ petition filed by four teachers challenging the PTR mentioned in govt order dated June 22, 2026. The teachers had pleaded that the PTR ought to have been calculated school-wise and class-wise in accordance with the RTE Act and that the district-wise figures affected their ability to make an informed choice while seeking transfer.The petitioners were appointed as assistant teachers in basic schools and posted in particular districts under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education (Teachers) (Posting) Rules, 2008. The rules restrict transfers except in prescribed circumstances. The state, however, issued a policy on June 4, 2026, permitting inter-district transfers in specified categories, including cases involving spouses working in different districts.Under the policy, where both spouses are teachers in basic schools, a transfer application could be considered for a district having a lower PTR.The petitioners contended that the RTE Act required PTR to be maintained school-wise and class-wise, relying on a Kerala High Court judgment which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court.The HC, however, distinguished the transfer exercise from the statutory requirement under the RTE Act. It observed that the district-wise PTR list was prepared only to help the state determine where teachers could be transferred and had no bearing on the statutory PTR requirement under the RTE Act. The court further held that teachers have no inherent statutory right to transfer. Their entitlement arose only from the state’s policy, which contemplated consideration of transfers at the district level.Holding that no legal right of the petitioners had been adversely affected, the court found no ground to interfere with the policy and dismissed the writ petition. It clarified that it had not endorsed the PTR list for determining compliance with the requirements of the RTE Act.
