[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Aarti Chitkaria vs State Of Uttarakhand & Ors on 24 February, 2026
2026:UHC:1253-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
February 24, 2026
Writ Petition (S/B) No.490 of 2025
Aarti Chitkaria ---Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ---Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/S) No.2142 of 2025
Pratibha Singh ---Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ---Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No.2144 of 2025
Shruti Kandari ---Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ---Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Navnish Negi and Mr. Himanshu Aswal, learned counsel for the
petitioner in WPSB No.490/2025
Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the petitioners in WPSB
No.2142/2025 and WPSB No.2144/2025 and learned counsel for the
applicant (IA No.2/2025 Intervention Application) in WPSB
No.490/2025
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. with Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal,
learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand
--------------------------------------------------------------
1
2026:UHC:1253-DB
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. All the three writ petitions arise out of the
same controversy concerning the recommendations/
transfers of the Principal and members of the teaching
staff of Government Girls Inter College, Ranipokhri,
District Dehradun and are, therefore, being decided by
this common order.
3. The petitioner Aarti Chitkaria in WPSB
No.490/2025 is Principal of the Institution. It appears
that subsequent to her transfer as Principal of the
Institution pursuant to order dated 26.07.2024, there
have been constant protests and dharnas by the
members of teaching staff, seriously affecting the
academic functioning of the Institution and
jeopardizing the interest of the students.
Consequently, on direction of the Director, Secondary
Education, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, vide letter dated
25.06.2025, a three member Committee headed by
Additional Director of Education, Secondary Education,
Garhwal Region, Pauri and two other Officers was
2026:UHC:1253-DB
constituted to inquire into the dispute and make
appropriate recommendations. The said Committee
held a detailed inquiry, recorded the statement of the
teachers and thereafter submitted a report dated
06.09.2025. In the said inquiry, the members of the
teaching staff alleged that petitioner's behavior
towards them was indecent and as a result it had
spoiled the atmosphere of the Institution. The
Committee, while taking note of the said allegations,
observed that the petitioner had dealt with the
teachers strictly with a view to maintain academic
standard. At the same time, the Committee formed
the opinion that the petitioner lacked leadership
qualities and was unable to effectively control the
teaching staff, which had resorted to dharna and
various forms of protest. The Committee also found
that as a result of unrest and continued dharna and
pardarshan, the academic result of two teachers,
namely, Smt. Shruti Kandari (Physics) and Smt.
Pratibha Singh (Chemistry) for the current academic
year was Nil, consequently, it recommended initiation
of departmental proceedings against them, as per law.
2026:UHC:1253-DB
4. On the basis of the aforesaid
recommendation of the Committee, the Director of
Education, vide communication dated 14.10.2025,
recommended to the State Government that the
Principal be transferred to some other place.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present
writ petition.
5. This Court, while entertaining the writ
petition, by order dated 17.11.2025, directed the
Director, Secondary Education to file a short affidavit
furnishing details of the teaching staff and for how
long he / she has been working there. In continuation,
also the order was passed on 24.11.2025, inter-alia,
seeking explanation as to what action was taken
against teachers whose academic performance had
been zero or below average and also those who had
indulged in dharna and protests.
6. It appears that upon the above said
information being sought, the Director, Secondary
Education, issued an order dated 03.12.2025,
transferring Smt. Pratibha Singh and Smt. Shruti
Kandari to different Institutions. Aggrieved thereby,
2026:UHC:1253-DB
Smt. Pratibha Singh and Smt. Shruti Kandari filed
WPSS No.2142/2025 and WPSS No.2144/2055,
respectively. Both the writ petitions are connected
with the petition filed by Smt. Arti Chitkaria and have
been heard together.
7. It has been brought on record that Smt.
Pratibha Singh and Smt. Shruti Kandari have joined at
their respective places of transfer in compliance of
order of this Court dated 31.12.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WPSB
No.490/2025 submitted that the petitioner was
transferred to the present Institution only on
26.07.2024 and, therefore, the recommendation for
her transfer is without any basis and should not have
been made. It is contended that the report of the
three member Committee, in fact, substantially
supports the petitioner and does not furnish any valid
ground for recommending her transfer. He further
submits that the teachers of the Institution have acted
in concert against the petitioner and that, if she is
transferred, it would amount to yielding to their
pressure tactics.
2026:UHC:1253-DB
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners in WPSS
No.2142/2025 and WPSS No.2144/2055 submitted
that the transfer orders impugned herein are arbitrary
and based on irrelevant considerations. Insofar as
Smt. Shruti Kandari is concerned, it has been
submitted that although her result for the current
academic session was Nil, her performance in the
preceding years was consistently good. He also
submitted that his daughter is suffering from Autism
and the place where she has been transferred i.e.
GGIC, Barkot, Uttarkashi lacks adequate medical
facilities and therefore the transfer order should be
withdrawn.
10. In respect of the petitioner in WPSS
No.2142/2025, the submission is that she had been
transferred to the present Institution only two months
prior to the declaration of result and therefore she
cannot be held solely responsible for zero result.
11. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand,
submitted that in the case of Arti Chitkaria, the
teaching staff had made several complaints against
her and even during the earlier posting, complaint of
2026:UHC:1253-DB
similar nature were made against her. He, thus, tried
to support the recommendations made by three
member Committee.
12. In respect of the teachers, he submits that
since they have delivered zero result, therefore, they
have been transferred.
13. We have considered the rival submissions
and perused the material available on record.
14. It is not in dispute that the teaching
atmosphere in the Institution has been seriously
affected due to unrest between the teaching staff and
the Principal. It is also not disputed that in respect of
the teachers against whom transfer orders have been
passed, the academic result for the current academic
session had been zero.
15. The Director, Secondary Education, noticing
that the teaching in the Institution is getting adversely
affected because of the dispute between the Principal
and teaching staff, had constituted three member
Committee to inquire into the matter and to make
appropriate recommendations. The said Committee
2026:UHC:1253-DB
was chaired by official of the rank of Additional
Director. The Committee, as is evident from the report,
has held an extensive inquiry and has thereafter made
its recommendations for transfer of Arti Chitkaria,
Principal of the Institution. The Committee found that
although she had made efforts to improve the
academic standard of the Institution and enforce
discipline but she utterly failed in containing the
agitation by the teaching staff. The Committee has
found her to be lacking in leadership qualities, which is
an essential trait for the job of Principal of an
Institution. The Committee, therefore, made
recommendation for posting of the petitioner in DIET
or CMAT, where job profile does not require the
administrative capabilities, which are expected from a
Principal of an Institution. The recommendation of the
Committee has yet not been acted upon and at this
stage the petitioner has rushed to this Court and has
filed the writ petition.
16. We are of the considered opinion that it is
within the domain of the State Government to
examine the report and take appropriate decision as to
2026:UHC:1253-DB
whether the said report has to be accepted or not and
whether the petitioner has to be transferred to any
other place. The Court does not have the expertise to
examine how the academic atmosphere of the
Institution is to be restored, nor is supposed to
encroach into the said domain of the State
Government. Therefore, at this stage, we find no good
ground to quash the recommendations made by the
Director, Secondary Education, Uttarakhand to the
State Government, based on the report of the three
member Committee. We leave it open to the State
Government to take independent decision in respect of
the proposal for transfer of the petitioner to some
other Institution. Accordingly, the WPSB No.490/2025
stands disposed of.
17. In respect of petitioners in WPSS
No.2142/2025 and WPSS No.2144/2055, as the result
delivered by the petitioners was zero, therefore, we do
not find any fault in the decision of the Director,
Secondary Education, Uttarakhand, transferring the
petitioners to some other place. Admittedly, the
petitioners have indulged in demonstration instead of
2026:UHC:1253-DB
teaching the students, which has seriously impacted
the functioning of the school and definitely the result
of the Institution.
18. In case, the petitioners are having any
personal issues, they are free to raise the same by
filing appropriate representation before the Director,
Secondary Education and we further provide that in
case any such representation is made by the
petitioners, it would be considered by respondent no.2
within three weeks from the date representation is
made. Accordingly, WPSS No.2142/2025 and WPSS
No.2144/2025 also stand disposed of.
19. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 24.02.2026
Rajni
