Allahabad High Court
GAURAV SINGHversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to produce the required NOC and did not rebut the reasons recorded in the impugned order.
Summary
Petitioner Gaurav Singh filed a writ petition seeking relief, presumably a transfer, but failed to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the competent authority of his former college. The High Court examined the impugned order dated 15-04-2026 and found the reasons for rejecting the petition sustainable, noting that the petitioner did not contradict the record. The Court held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner as he could not refute the reasons. A reference to a coordinate bench order in Birendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. was deemed inapplicable because that case did not consider merit. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, though the petitioner may file a fresh transfer application.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the petitioner’s failure to produce a No Objection Certificate from the competent authority?
- Whether the impugned order dated 15-04-2026 is legally sustainable in the absence of a fresh opportunity to the petitioner?
- Whether the coordinate bench decision in Birendra Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. is binding or relevant to the present petition?
Subjects
- Transfer
- No Objection Certificate
- Writ Petition
- Due Process
- Administrative Law
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 6228 of 2026
Gaurav Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyendra Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Prashant Kumar Tripathi
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. The Court finds that reasons assigned in impugned order dated 15.04.2026
are sustainable since petitioner is not able to show NOC issued by
Competent Authority from College concerned where he was earlier working
as well as that at the relevant time Authorized Controller was taking care of
day-to-day management of College and said fact has not been denied
specifically either in writ petition or during course of hearing.
3. Therefore, even no opportunity was granted to petitioner before impugned
order was passed but it is not a case that petitioner is prejudice since he has
failed to contradict the reasons assigned in impugned order on basis of
record.
4. The Court finds that reference of an order passed by a Coordinate Bench
of this court in Birendra Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others,
2026:AHC:95100 will not be helpful to petitioner herein since therein no
merit was considered so far as reasons assigned in impugned order, whereas
present order is passed considering merit of impugned order in present case.
WRIA No. 6228 of 2026
2
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this order will not
come in way, if petitioner applies fresh for transfer.
May 6, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…