Point of Law: policy as promulgated does provide for situations where teachers are single parents irrespective of whether their spouses are serving, retired or erstwhile members of the Forces.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Birendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Ms. Archana Singh, who appeared for the contesting respondents.

2. This petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs :

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and quashing the impugned Clause 2(13) of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow only to an extent that it only refers to exemption for getting transferred from the aspirational districts like Bahraich to District Kannauj insofar as it relates to the petitioner, whose spouse is serving in the Indian Army/ Air Force/ Navy/ Paramilitary Forces (CRPF/ CISF/ SSB/ Assam Riffles/ ITBP/ NSG/ BSF) and not to the petitioner whose husband has served in the Indian Army and died while being in service of the Indian Army and the result of online inter-district transfer dated 01.01.2021 where the result is shown as not transferred due to aspirational district restriction as per Government Order dated 02.12.2019.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the inter-district transfer relating to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in a primary school, from the district Baharaich to her desired district Kannauj by extending benefit of Clause 2(13) of the Government Order dated 02.12.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow which provides exemption to the Assistant Teachers whose spouse are working in the Indian Army/ Air Force/ Navy/ Paramilitary Forces (CRPF/ CISF/ SSB/ Assam Riffles/ ITBP/ NSG/ BSF)."

3. The petitioner is a widow whose husband served in the Armed Forces. He unfortunately died while serving in the Forces. The submission of Sri Singh was that Clause 2(13) insofar as it restricts consideration of requests for transfer to those whose spouses are serving members of the Armed Forces is arbitrary. As would be manifest from a reading of reliefs as framed, the petitioner essentially seeks the extension of Clause 2 (13) to even those cases where the spouse of the Assistant Teacher may have previously been in the Armed Forces.

4. It becomes pertinent to note that the petitioner admittedly applied for transfer in terms of the policy as framed by the respondents. She raised no challenge to the clause on grounds aforenoted prior to filing her application for transfer. If the petitioner was of the view that Clause 2 (13) was invalid, she should have raised a challenge in that respect at the very outset and when the process was initiated. In the considered view of the Court the petitioner cannot now turn around and assail those very conditions and restrictions subject to which she had applied for transfer in the first place.

5. As is manifest from a reading of the Government Order of 2 December 2019, transfer could not be claimed as a matter of right. The respondents formulated a policy in terms of which requests for transfer was to be considered based on points which were earmarked to cover varied eventualities. One of those clauses related to those Assistant Teachers whose spouse may be currently serving in the Forces. The petitioner was fully aware of the extent of the application of Clause 15 of the Government Order and was placed on notice that she would not be eligible to be assigned marks merely because her husband had prior to his demise been a member of the Forces. Yet she chose not to assail that stipulation at the first available opportunity. This circumstance weighs heavily against the petitioner.

6. Turning then to the legal challenge which is raised, it would be apposite to notice the legal position as it obtains under the 1981 Rules and the U.P. Teachers Posting Rules 2008. In Smt. Ruchi Vs. State of U.P., 2018 (10) ADJ 161 a learned Judge of the Court enunciated the position as u