The Allahabad High Court has expressed strong dismay after learning that the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board rejected the request of a teacher battling breast cancer to be transferred, even though the court had previously directed that her case be considered “sympathetically.” The teacher, Kalpana Sharma, serves as an Assistant Teacher (Science) at a Junior High School in Shahjahanpur. She has undergone surgery for breast cancer and is currently receiving chemotherapy at a cancer treatment centre in Ghaziabad.
Kalpana had argued that continuing to work in Shahjahanpur imposed severe difficulties, given that her treatment and family are based much closer to Ghaziabad—more than 300 kilometres away. In an earlier hearing, the High Court had disposed of her writ petition by issuing a direction to the Board to review her transfer request sympathetically, keeping in mind her health condition and her ongoing treatment.
Despite the court’s clear instruction, the Board later rejected her representation. The rejection was rooted in a technical ground: her school reportedly had only two teachers, while the policy mandates at least three teachers when there are 36 students. The Court voiced serious concern over this rationale. It noted that the Board’s justification seemed perfunctory and rigid, especially because many schools apparently violate this “three-teacher” norm yet continue to operate. The bench questioned why the Board relied on this technicality against her when, in practice, it tolerated larger imbalances in teacher staffing elsewhere.
Describing the Board’s conduct as “unfortunate,” the Court directed the Secretary of the Basic Education Board to personally appear or file a sworn affidavit explaining why the transfer was denied despite the prior court order. The Court demanded a full accounting of how the Board assessed her request, especially given her medical condition and the earlier judicial instruction.
The order underscores the Court’s concern for the dignity and welfare of public servants facing serious illness, and its insistence that administrative authorities must act with humanity and reason — not merely on bureaucratic rigidity. By calling out the Board’s rejection as contrary to its own compassionate mandate, the High Court has sent a strong message that policy technicalities should not override basic human compassion.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.