Holding

Rule 6 contains both mandatory and directory requirements; non‑compliance with the routing provision is not fatal if there is substantial compliance, and the State Government’s discretion to approve the transfer was valid, leading to dismissal of the appeals.

Summary

Dr. Ram Deen Maurya and Dr. Madhu Tandon both applied for transfer to a vacant Reader post at D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow, obtaining No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from their respective parent colleges. The State Government granted permission to transfer Maurya, prompting Tandon to file a writ petition which the Allahabad High Court allowed, quashing Maurya's transfer order on the ground that the earlier NOC to Tandon was valid and that the college manager could not issue a second NOC for the same vacancy. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005, holding that while the rule’s requirement to route the application through both college managements is mandatory, the subsequent procedural steps—such as the Director’s recommendation within a month—are directory and non‑compliance does not invalidate the application. The Court found substantial compliance in Maurya’s case, accepted the High Court’s factual findings, and concluded that the State Government’s discretion was exercised lawfully. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the contempt petition disposed.

Issues considered

The nature of Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005: whether its provisions are mandatory or directory.
Whether non‑compliance with the requirement to route a transfer application through both college managements invalidates the application.
Whether the earlier NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon precludes issuance of a later NOC to Dr. Ram Deen Maurya for the same vacancy.
Whether the State Government may rely on the Director of Higher Education’s recommendation or decide independently under the Rules.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Transfer of teachersNo Objection CertificateProcedural complianceMandatory vs directory ruleUttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers RulesService lawState government discretion

Judgment

[2009] 6 S.C.R. 703

DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA A
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2625 of 2009)

APRIL 17, 2009.
8
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]

· Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules,
• 2005: r.6 - Routing the application through management is
requirement under the rules, however its non-compliance C
would not make application invalid - NOC issued to the writ
petitioner by both the colleges was earlier in point of time than
that of NOC granted to appellant - High ·court held that
Manager of the College could not have issued second NOC
against the same vacancy in favour of appellant and NOC D
issued to writ petitioner was in order - The finding on facts by
the High Court not perverse.
Appellant and respondent No. 5 both wanted to be
transferred to D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow E
where a post of reader fell vacant. The State Government
accorded permission for transfer of appellant.
Respondent No. 5 filed writ petition before High Court,
which was allowed Hence these appeals.

It was contended for appellant that the Committee of F
Management of D.A.V. Post Graduate College had passed
the first resolution in favour of appellant on 04.04.2005
and in pursuance thereof, No Objection Certificate was
issued to the appellant on 03.05.2005 for his transfer to
DAV College and, therefore, the State Govt. was justified G
in granting permission for transfer and that the
application filed by the respondent No.5 was ir.valid and
nonest in law, since the same was sent directly to the
Director of Education; that under the Uttar Pradesh Aided
703 H
704 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 6 S.C.R.

A College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005, the transfer
application for single transfer from one College to the
other requires to be submitted to the Director of
Education, (Higher Education) through the Management
constituted and approved by the University along with
B the written consent of both the Management and since
the application submitted by the contesting respondent
was contrary to the statutory rules, the same is invalid
and contrary to th~ rules; and that when the Rules
prescribe a particular procedure to be followed for
c submitting the application for single transfer, the same
requires to be followed and any deviation would disentitle
claim under the Rules.

Dismissing the appeals and disposing of the
contempt petition, the Court
D
HELD: 1. D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow is "·
affiliated to Lucknow University, Lucknow. The
provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973, and the
provisions of U.P. Higher Education Services
E Commission Act, 1980 are made applicable to the
teachers of the said College. By U.P. Ordinance No.14 of
2004, Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is amended and a
provision for the transfer of the teachers/lecturers from
one aided degree College to another aided degree " •
F College, on fulfillment of certain conditions is provided
therein. The rules are framed to give effect to the
amended provisions and they are known as the Uttar
Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005.
[Para 17] [717-C-E]

G Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, 1936 PC 253 and Dhanajaya
Reddy v. State of Kamataka, (2001) 4 SCC 9, referred to.

2. Rule 6 of the Rules provides the procedure for
making an application by a teacher desirous of transfer
H
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 705
~
_,
from one college to another college against the available A
post for which salary is paid from the salary Payment
Account. Under the rule, the transfer application for single
or mutual transfer from one college to the other college
requires to be submitted through the legally constituted
management, along with the written consent of both the B
management to the Director of Higher Education. [Para
18] [718-B-D]
,,\
Meera Sahni v. Governor of Delhi (2008) 9 SCC 177,
relied on.
c
3. If the rule is mandatory, then it is settled rule of
interpretation, it must be strictly construed and followed
and act done in breach thereof will be invalid. But if it is
directory, the act will be valid although the non-
compliance may give rise to some other penalty if D
-"'1,o provided by the Statute. It is often said that a mandatory
enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but, a
directory provision non-compliance of it, has been held
in many cases as not affecting the validity of the act done
in breach thereof. [Para 20] [719-E-G] E
Principles of Statutory Interpretation - 11th Edition 2008
by Justice G.P. Singh, Referred to.

4. Rule 6 of the rules is in four parts. They are, (i) The
transfer application for single/mutual transfer shall be F
submitted to the Director, Higher Education (ii) It shall be
submitted through the management along with the
written consent of both the management. (iii) The.
Director, Higher Education shall submit his
recommendation to the Government within one month. G
(iv) The Government shall take decision either on the 1
basis of recommendation of the Director· or on its own.
Filing of the application before the Director (Higher
Education) is a must for transfer, for the reason under the
rules, it is he who is expected to consider the application H
706 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A to find out, whether the applicant is eligible for such
transfer and whether the applicant has obtained consent
or no objection from both the managements, namely,
from the management where he or she is working and to
the college where he or she wants to be transferred and
8 if the requirement in this behalf is not complied with, the
Director may reject the applir.ation at the threshold itself.
The third part of the rule says that the Director (Higher
Education) shall submit his recommendation within one
month to th"e State Government, if there is any delay in
C making the recommendation, the rules do not provide
that the recommendations so made, will not be
considered by the State Government nor the rule says, if
the recommendations are not received within the
stipulated time, the State Government would ignore the
recommendation and proceed to decide the request of
D the applicant independently. Therefore, the requirement
of this part of rule is only directory and not mandatory,
the non-compliance thereof will not make the application
invalid. The fourth limb of the rule gives discretion to the
State Government. The State Government may accept the
E recommendation of the Director (Higher Education) and
then proceed to pass an order on the application filed by
the applicant/s for transfer. The discretion is also given
to the State Government, that, inspite of
recommendations made by the Director (Higher
F Education), it can also take a decision on its own. That
only means that under all circumstances, the State
Government need not accept the recommendations of the
Director of Higher Education and it can take its own
decision with the material available and also to take such
G decision, collect material from the respective
managements. Since absolute discretion is provided to
the State Government to take a decision either on the
recommendation made by the Director of Higher
Education or on its own in regard to the request of the
H applicant for a single time transfer from one college to
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 707

another, this portion of the rule by no stretch of A
imagination can be construed as a mandatory. [Para 21)
[719-G-H; 720-A-H; 721-A-C]

5. In Service Law Jurisprudence, it is mandatory that
an employee is required to route through all his 8

- applications to the higher ups through the head of the
department; where he or she is working. The object is to
maintain discipline in the institution or the organization.
[Para 21) [721-E-G]

6. In the instant case, on the request made by the C
applicant an NOC is granted and thereafter, routing the
application through the management is a requirement
under the rules, and its ·non-compliance thereof would
not make her application invalid. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, both managements were fully D
aware that the applicant intends to shift herself to a
college which may be helpful to her either to achieve
better prospects in her profession or to suit her
convenience. It does not involve any public interest nor
it would effect the interest of both the managements in E
any manner whatsoever, and there is substantial
compliance with the requirements of the rules. While
considering the non-compliance of procedural
requirement, it has to be kept in view, that, such a
requirement is designed to facilitate justice and furthers F
its ends and, therefore, if the consequence of non-
compliance is not provided, the requirement may be held
to be directory. [Para 22] [721-G-H; 722-A-D]

7. In Rule 6 of the Rules, the rule making authority
has used the expression 'shall'. Nevertheless, the word G
"shall" need not be given that connotation in each and
every case and the provisions can be interpreted as
directory instead of mandatory depending upon the
purpose which the legislature intended to achieve as
disclosed by the object, design, purpose and scope of H
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A the statute. While interpreting the concerned provisions,
regard must be had to the content, subject matter and
object of the statute in question. [Para 23] [722-D, F-G]

Mis Rubber House vs. Mis Excelsior Needle Industries
B Pvt. Ltd., (1989) 2 SCC 813, Relied on.

8. Respondent 5 obtained NOC from her parent
college and also from the college where she intends to
be transferred. The NOC issued by both the college9 was
..
earlier in point of time than that of NOC granted to
C appellant. However, the case of management of D.A.V.
Post Graduate College authorities is that the NOC granted
to respondent 5 was not by the management of the
institution, but by the President and Assistant Secretary,
who were not authorized to issue such No Objection
D Certificate. The High Court while considering this issue,
has looked into the records maintained by the college
authorities and on facts has come to the conclusion that
the NOC issued to Respondent is in order and, therefore,
was not justified in contending contrary to their own
E records. The finding on facts by the High Court, by no
stretch of imagination can be criticized as perverse
findings. [Para 24] [723-A-D]
Case Law Reference:

F 1936 PC 253 referred to [Para 14]
2001 4 secs referred [Para 14)
2008 9 sec 111 relied on [Para 18]
1989 2 sec 813 reliance on [Para 23]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
2625 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04. 10.2007 of the
H
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 709

...;
High Court of Allahabad in Civil Mic. Writ Petition 5014 of 2006. A

WITH

C.A. No. 2626 /2009

Cont. Pet. (C) No.90/2008 in S.L.P.(C) No.22330/2007 B

- ,.. S.R. Singh, Umesh Chandra, Vibhakar Mishra, Pankaj
Sharma, Abhisth Kumar, Shakil Ahmed Syed, Hira Lal
Srivastava and Faizy Ahmad ·sye for the Appellant.
' Garvesh Kabra, Shrish Kr. Misra, Ameet Singh, Yatish c
Mohan, V.Y. Mohan, E.C. Vidya Sagar and A.S. Sagar for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
; .,. H.L. DATIU, J. 1. Leave granted in these special leave
petitions.

2. In these appeals, the appellants question the
correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order passed by
the High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.5014 of 2006 E
dated 04.10.2007. By the impugned order, the Court, while
allowing the writ petition, has quashed the order passed by the
State Government dated 09.01.2006, wherein and whereunder
. '""\
" the State Government had granted permission for transfer of
petitioner- Dr. Ram Deen Maurya from A.P.N. College, Basti F
to D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow, to the post which
had fallen vacant due to the retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh.

3. Case of the petitioner - Dr. Ram Deen Maurya :-
Petitioner is working as a Lecturer in A.P.N. Post Graduate G
~-Jt College, Basti in the Department of Economics. On
30.06.2002, a post of a Reader fell vacant in the Department
of Economics due to the retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh in
D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow. The petitioner wanted
to be transferred from A.P.N. Post Graduate College, Basti to
H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow to the aforesaid
vacant post. Therefore, petitioner on 12.03.2005 applied for No
Objection Certificate ( · N .0 .C .' for short) before the
management of D.A.V. Post Graduate College for the transfer
to the said vacant post. By a Resolution dated 04.04.2005, the
B management of D.A.V. College unanimously decided in favour
of the petitioner for the issuance of NOC and accordingly
issued the NOC in favour of the petitioner on 03.05.2005 for
the said transfer. Petitioner on 05.05.2005 applied for the
issuance of NOC in his parent College viz. A.P.N. College for
-
c transfer to D.A.V. Post Graduate College. The authorized
Controller of the A.P .N. College considered the application of
the petitioner and issued NOC for the said transfer on
30.05.2005. The Principal of A.P.N .. College on 31.05.2005,
sent the application of the petitioner to the Director of
D Education, (Higher Education), Uttar Pradesh for its
consideration and recommendation as provided in the Uttar
Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005.

4. Case of Dr. Madhu Tandon - Respondent No.5: - On
24.10.2004, she had made an application for issuance of NOC
E with regard to her transfer to D.A.V. Post Graduate College
before the management of her parent institution, viz. Prayag
Mahila Vidyapeeth College, Allahabad. In this regard, NOC
was issued by the management of P.M.V. College in her favour
for the said transfer on 21.12.2004. Dr. Madhu Tandan, then
F made an application before the Management of D.A.V. Post
Graduate College, for grant of NOC for her transfer to their
institution. The said application was considered and a
resolution was passed by the Committee of Management of
D.A.V. Post Graduate College in the meeting held on
G 04.04.2005. Based on the aforesaid resolution, the manager
)l -
of D.A.V. Post Graduate College issued NOC on 28.04.2005.
After getting NOC from both the Colleges, Dr. Madhu Tandon
submitted her application to the Director of Education, seeking
her transfer from her Parent College to D.A.V. Post Graduate
H College.
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 711
-- [H.l. DATTU, J.]

5. The Director of Education (Higher Education), duly A
processed the said application and forwarded his
recommendation to the Secretary, Allahabad Education
Department, Government of U.P. on 17.06.2005 for transfer of
Dr. Madhu Tandon from Prayag Mahila Vidyapeeth Degree
College, Allahabad to DAV Post Graduate College, Lucknow, B
though the transfer application of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya was
.... also available in his office .

6. It is stated fhat the petitioner had approached the
Director of Education on 23.06.2005 to enquire about his C
transfer application and it appears that he was informed that
his transfer application is not available in their records. It is
further sta.ted, that, the petitioner gave an application to the Joint.
Secretary, Education Department along with the Photostat copy
of the application submitted before the Director of Education
(Higher Education). It is further stated, that, on 24.06.2005, the D
petitioner filed a representation to the Secretary Higher
Education, Government of U.P. and also before the Director of
Education, inter alia stating that he had also made an
application for the' transfer to D.A.V. Post Graduate College
and, however, without considering his application, only the E
application filled by Dr. Madhu Tandon has been recommended
to the Secretary Higher Education for transfer. It is also stated
in the representation that only his name had been approved by
the Management Committee of DAV Post Graduate College
for the said post but the Director of Education has failed to F
recommend his case for transfer. It is also stated that in
response to the query made by the Secretary, Education
Department, the Director of Education by his letter dated
11.07.2005 had informed the Secretary for Higher Education,
that the name of Dr. Madhu Tandon has already been G
recommended by the Directorate on 17.06.2005 for the transfer
to the vacant post due to retirement of Dr. Ram Avatar Singh.
It is also .clarified that the management of DAV Post Graduate
College, l,.ucknow has given No Objection Certificate to both
Dr. Madhu Tandon and Dr. Ram Deen Maurya, but the transfer H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
....
~
A application of Dr. Madhu Tandon was received earlier than Dr.
Ram Deen Maurya and, therefore, the recommendation for
transfer of Dr. Madhu Tandon has been sent to the State
Government and due to non-availability of the post, the
application of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya is not considered and
B recommended.
7. The Joint Secretary, Higher Education, after considering
the No Objection Certificates issued, one in favour of Dr. Madhu A --
Tandon and another in favour of Dr. Ra'm Deen Maurya for the
transfer on the same post which fell vacant on the retirement
c of Dr. Ram Autar Singh on 30.06.2002 sought clarification from
Manager D.A.V. Post Graduate College, Lucknow, vide letter
dated 09.09.2005, to clari.fy whose application should be
considered for the transfer to the vacant post, which has fallen
vacant on the retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh. In response
D to the clarification so sought, the Manager of DAV Post ! •
Graduate College, Lucknow, has informed the Secretary,
Education Department that the NOC given in favour of Dr. Ram
Deen Maurya should be treated as valid NOC for the purpose
of transfer to the vacant post and the transfer order may be
E issued to Dr. Ram Deen Maurya to join the vacant post in the
Department of Economics in D.A.V. Post Graduate College.

8. The Director of Education by his letter dated 20.09.2005
sought clarification from the President of the Committee of " ,...
F Management of DAV Post Graduate College, as to out of two
No objection certificates issued by them to two applicants,
which No Objection Certificate should be accepted by him to
make his recommendation to the State Government for transfer
of the applicants to their institution. In response to this letter,
the President of the Committee of Management, vide his letter
G \< -
dated 20.09.2005 has informed the Director of Education that
the No Objection Certificate issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon is one
which is issued at the earliest point of time and, therefore, the
same should be accepted for the purpose of transfer.
H 9. To add to this confusion, the Manager of DAV Post
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 713
[H.L. DATTU, J.)
~
Graduate College, vide his letter dated 27.10.2005 has A
informed the Secretary to the Education Department that
sanction has been granted by Regional Higher Education
Officer on 25.10.2005 for the post which has fallen vacant due
to retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh and requested him to
transfer Dr. Ram Deen Maurya to that post. 8
10. Case of DAV Post Graduate College, Lucknow:- Dr.
Madhu Tandon on 26.02.2005 submitted an application for
issuance of NOC for her transfer to the said College to the
vacant post in view of the retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh.
'
Dr. Ram Deen Maurya also submitted an application on
c
12.03.2005 for the very same purpose. Accordingly, a resolution
was passed on 04.04.2005 by the Committee of Man~gement
with regard to issue of NOC to the applicants. It is further stated,
that the Committee took a unanimous decision that it would have
> ~
no objection if Dr. Ram Deen Maurya is transferred to the D
vacant post of teacher in the Economics Department by the
State Government and, whereas, in respect of Dr. Madhu
Tandon, the Committee took the decision that the Committee
would have no objection, if Dr. Tandon is transferred by the State
Government in the absence ofsanction of post as per Rules. It E
is also stated that on 28.04.2005, the Committee of
Management of the College issued a NOC in favour of Dr.
,_..... '~
Madhu Tandon and, on 03.05.2005 another NOC was issued
in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya. It is also their case, that
the President, and the Deputy Manager of Committee of F
Management, issued a false certificate that no resolution
recommending the name of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya for transfer
was passed on 23.07.2005. It is also stated, that, the Joint
Secretary, Education Department had sought clarification from
the Manager, D.A.V. Post Graduate College, to clarify as to G
,,.,. l(
which of the two No Objection Certificates issued for the
purpose of transfer to the vacant post should be considered. It ·
is their further stand, that, the Manager in his reply dated
12.09.2005, had stated that the NOC issued in favour of Dr.
Ram Deen Maurya be considered for the transfer to the vacant H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A post. It is also stated that the President of the Management
Committee by his letter dated 17.11.2005 to the Director of
Education had falsely informed that by resolution dated
04.04.2005, Dr. Madhu Tandon's application was only
considered in respect of issuance of NOC.
B
11. Order Passed by the State Government :- The
Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, vide its order dated
9.1.2006 accorded permission for transfer of Dr. Ram Deen
Maurya from A.P.N College, 'Basti to D.A.V. Post Graduate
C College.

12. Reliefs sought in the Writ Petition:- Dr Madhu Tandon,
being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government
dated 09.01.2006, 'filed a writ petition before Allahabad High
Court in WP No.5014 of 2006, inter alia requesting the Court
D to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order
+ •
passed by the State Government and further to direct the State
Government to issue necessary orders transferring her to the
post of Lecturer in Economics to the substantive vacancy
caused due to the retirement of Dr. Ram Autar Singh.
E
13. Order passed by the High Court:- The High Court has
allowed the writ petition and has granted the reliefs sought for
by the petitioner in the writ petition and while doing so, the Court
has looked into original records produced by the Management
of D.A.V. Post Graduate College. In the course of its order, the
F Court has observed, that, the original register produced by the
Manager in respect of the meeting held on 04.04.2005, does
not inspire confidence and, therefore, the same cannot be
relied on. Secondly, the Manager of the College could not have
issued a second No Objection Certificate against the same
G vacancy in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya and, consequently,
the order of the State Government cannot be sustained, since
it is based on considerations of irrelevant documents. The Court
has also observed, that the State Government having regard
to the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder,
H can accept the recommendation of the Director of Education
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 715
[H.L. DATIU, J.]
-;I
or take its own decision in the matter having regard to the A
relevant prayers and documents received, and it is highly
inappropriate on the part of the State Government to enter into
private correspondence with the Manager of DAV Post
Graduate College and to make a decision on the basis of the
document received behind the back of the incumbent. The Court B
by way of finding of fact has also observed that the Committee
of Management of DAV Post Graduate College in fact had
)r gr~nted NOC in favour of Dr. Madhu Tandon and that th.e NOC
issued in her favour was prior in point of time to the grant of
NOC in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya. c
14. Submissions :- The learned senior counsel Sri S.R.
Singh, appearing for the petitioner, would. contend that the
Committee of Management of D.A.V. Post Graduate College
had passed the first resolution in favour of petitioner on
04.04.2005 and in pursuance thereof, No Objection Certificate D
-~ ~
was issued to the petitioner on 03.05.2005 for his transfer to
DAV College and, therefore, the State Govt. was justified in
passing the order dated 09.01.2006. It is further submitted, that,
the application said to have been filed by the respondent No.5
was invalid and nonest in law, since the same was sent directly E
to the Director of Education. While elaborating this submission,
the learned senior counsel would submit, that, under the Uttar
Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005, the
-..- ;>
transfer application for single transfer from one College to the
other requires to be submitted to the Director of Education, F
(Higher Education) through the Management constituted and
approved by the University along with the written consent of
both the Management and since the application submitted by
the contesting respondent was contrary to the statutory rules,

-
the same is invalid and contrary to the rules. The learned senior G
')/_ counsel would also contend, that, when the Rules prescribe a
particular procedure to be followed for submitting the
application for single transfer, the same requires to be followed
and any deviation would disentitle the applicant to claim relief
under the Rules. In aid of this submission, the reliance is placed I-
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. -
A on the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmad
~
-
Vs. Emperor, (1936 PC 253) and the decision of this Court in
the case of Dhanajaya Reddy Vs. State of Kamataka, (2001)
4 sec 9.

15. The learned Senior counsel appearing for DAV
B
College, would contend, that, the reasoning and the conclusion
reached by the High Court, is manifestly erroneous, for the
reason, that, the Court could not have come to the conclusion ~
that the resolution dated 04.04.2005 in which the decision to
grant NOC in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya was taken,
c cannot be believed due to the reason that it does not contain
the signature of all the members, whereas the agenda notice
had been .signed by all the members and the minutes of that.
meeting were ratified in the next meeting held on 06.05.2005.
It is further contenped that the High .Court was not justified in
D holding that in an emergent :neeting no decision with regard + ..
to ratification of an earlier meeting can be taken, when there
is no prohibition in law for arriving at such a decision in an
emergent meeting. The learned senior counsel would submit,
that, the court may not justified in holding that No Objection
E Certificate issued in favour of Dr. Madhu Tandon is in respect
of vacant post of Lecturer in the DAV College and, whereas a
perusal of the NOC, it only says that the College has no
objection if Dr. Madhu Tandon is transferred on an ,
i!
u11sanctioned post and, therefore, the Court could not have
F substituted its own decision while interpreting the NOC granted
in favour of Dr. Madhu Tandon. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel, that, the State Government cannot enter into
private correspondence with the Manager of the institution
when the Rules authorize the State Government to arrive at a
G decision either on the basis of the recommendation made by
the Director or on its own and, therefore, in view of Rule 4(6)
of the Rules 2005, the Court could not have taken any exception
.1- ~

....
to the procedure adopted by the State Government in
corresponding with the Management of D.A.V. College. It is
H further submitted that since the NOC issued in favour of Dr.
'DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 717
- -1
[H.L. DATIU, J.]
Madhu Tandon was issued before the NOC issued in favour of A
Dr. Ram Deen Maurya and, therefore, another NOC should not
have been issued in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya whereas
a perusal of the two NOC would reveal that they are different
and, thus, no conflict existed between the two NOC's and
therefore, the Management of DAV could not have issued NOC B
in favour of Dr. Ram Deen Maurya is an erroneous conclusion
reached by the court.

16. The learned counsel appearing for contesting
respondent, however, supported the impugned judgment.
c
17. Our conclusion :- The undisputed facts are, D.A.V.
Post Graduate College, Lucknow is affiliated to Lucknow
University, Lucknow. The provisions of the State Universities
Act, 1973, and the provisions of U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission Act, 1980 are made applicable to the D
, ·\ teachers of the said College. By U.P. Ordinance No.14 of 2004,
Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is amended and a provision for the
transfer of the teachers/lecturers from one aided degree
College to another aided degree College, on fulfillment of
certain conditions is provided therein. The rules are framed to E
give effect to the amended provisions and they are known as
the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules,

. "' 2005 ('Rules' for short). The rules are published in the
Government Gazette on 9th of April, 2005 and they are made
applicable with immediate effect. The rules provide for the F
meaning of the expressions, apart from others, the
"Management", "Teacher" etc., Rule 4 speaks of conditions of
transfer of teachers appointed on regular basis and holding lien
as permanent teacher, shall be entitled to transfer after 10
years of service only once in the whole service period. Rule 6 G
""'~ speaks of manner and the method for making an application
,.
for the purpose of transfer. In order to appreciate the
submissions of learned senior counsel Mr. S.R. Singh, the Rule
6 of the Rules requires to be extracted. The same is as under:-

"The transfer application for single/mutual transfer from one · H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.

A College to the other should be submitted to the Director,
it'
-
Higher Education through the Management legally
constituted and approved by the University along with the
written consent of both the managements. The Director,
Higher Education shall submit his recommendation to the
B Government within one month from the date of receipt of
the application. The Govt. shall take decision either on the
basis of the recommendation of the Director or on its own."

18. Rule 6 of the Rules provides the procedure for making
an application by a teacher desirous of transfer from one
c college to another college against the available post for which
salary is paid from the salary Payment Account. Under the rule,
the transfer application for single or mutual transfer from one
college to the other college requires to be submitted through
the legally constituted management, along with the written
D consent of both the management to the Director of Higher
t ~

Education. It is the submission of learned counsel Shri S.R.
Singh, appearing for the appellant, that Dr. Madhu Tandon -
Respondent No. 5, has not submitted her application for
transfer from her parent college to D.A.V. Post Graduate
E College, but has directly submitted the application to the
Director of Higher Education. Therefore, according to the
learned Senior Counsel, there is breach of statutory Rules and
the Director of Higher Education ought not to have entertained ..J
~
and recommended the case of Respondent No. 5 to the State
F Government. In aid of this submission, the reliance is placed
on the observations made by this Court in Dhanajaya Reddy's
case, which is noticed and explained in the recent decision of
this court in the case of Meera Sahni vs. Governor of Delhi
(2008) 9 sec 177, where in it is stated :-
G
31. "It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the }le ,.

manner of doing a particular act is prescribed "'
under any statute, the act must be done in that
manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is
traceable to the decision in Taylor vs. Taylor, which
H
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 719
.... [H.L. DATIU, J.]
-1
was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad vs. A
King Emperor, who stated as under:

"Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a
certain way, the thing must be done in that way or
not at all."
B
32, This rule has since been approved by this Court in
,4
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya
Pradesh and again in Deep Chand vs. State of
Rajasthan. These cases were considered by a
three Judge Bench of this Court in the State of U.P. c
Vs. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir
, Ahmad case was again upheld. This rule has since
been applied lo the exercise of jurisdiction by
Courts and has also been recognized as a salutory
.I -1
principle of administrative law." D

19. We cannot have any quarrel with the aforesaid principle
of law.

20. Having examined the rules and the principles evolved
.E
by the Courts, let us now examine whether non-compliance of
one of the facet of Rule 6 of the Rules would be fatal to the
application filed by Dr. Madhu Tandon. To answer this issue, it
~
.,. is necessary to find out, whether the rule is directory or
mandatory. If it is mandatory, then it is settled rule of
interpretation, it must be strictly construed and followed and act F
done in breach thereof will be invalid. But if it is directory, the
act will be valid although the non-compliance may give rise to
some other penalty if provided by the Statute. It is often said
that a mandatory enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly,
..... )!
but, a directory provision non-compliance of it, has been held G
in many cases as not affecting the validity of the act done in
breach thereof (See principles of Statutory Interpretation, 11th
Edition 2008 by Justice G.P. Singh).

21. Rule 6 of the rules is in four parts. They are, (i) The
H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~

A transfer application for single/mutual transfer shall be submitted "'
to the Director, Higher Education (ii) It shall be submitted /

through the management along with the written consent of both
the management. (iii) The Director, Higher Education shall
submit his recommendation to the Government within one
B month. (iv) The Government shall take decision either on the
basis of recommendation of the Director or on its own. Filing
of the application before the Director (Higher Education) is a
mu~t for transfer, for the reason under the rules, it is he ~ho is ~

expected to consider the application to find out, whether the
c applicant is eligible for such transfer and whether the applicant
has obtained consent or no objection from both the
managements, namely, from the management where he or she
is working and to the college where he or .she wants to be
transferred and if the requirement in this behalf is not complied
with, the Director may reject the application at the threshold
D
itself. Further, the rule specifically provides that the application t ~
for the purpose of Rule 4, must be filed only before him or no
other authority of the State Government, this part of the rule
requires to be considered mandatory. We will come to the
second limb of the rule a little later. The third part of the rule
E says that the Director (Higher Education) shall submit his
recommendation within one month to the State Government, if
there is any delay in making the recommendation, the rules do
not provide that the recommendations so made, will not be .. ~

considered by the State Government nor the rule says, if the.
F recommendations are not received within the stipulated time,
the State Government would ignore the recommendation and
proceed to decide the request of the applicant independently.
Therefore, this requirement of this part of rule is only directory
and not mandatory, the non-compliance thereof will not make
G the application invalid. The fourth limb of the rule gives discretion
.~,..
to the State Government. The State Government may accept
the recommendation of the Director (Higher Education) and
then proceed to pass an order on the application filed by the
applicant/s for transfer. The discretion is also given to the State
H Government, that, in spite of recommendations made by the
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 721
[H.L. DATIU, J.]
~

--t Director (Higher Education), it can also take a decision on its A
own. That only means that under all circumstances, the State
Government need not accept the recommendations of the
Director of Higher Education and it can take its own decision
with the material available and also to take such decision,
collect material from the respective managements. Since B
absolute discretion is provided to the State Government to take
a decision either on the recommendation made by the Director
of Higher Education or on its oi.vn in regard to the request of
the applicant for a single time transfer from one college to
another, this portion of the rule by no stretch of imagination can c
be construed as a mandatory. Now, we are left with second part
of the rule. As we have already noticed, the learned senior
counsel says, it is mandatory and non-compliance thereof would
invalidate the application filed and the Director of Higher
Education could not have recommended its consideration by D
~ .., the State Government. The submission of the learned Senior
Counsel looks attractive at the first blush, but on a consideration
of the submission, in our view, it has no merit. At the first
instance, we have to find out, whether this part of the rule is
mandatory and its non-compliance is fatal, and assuming it is
E
mandatory, whether the substantial compliance of this rule would
satisfy the requirement of this part of the rule and its non-
•' compliance would not be breach of the rules. We are fully aware
!
.'.'
.. that in Service Law Jurisprudence, it is mandatory that an
employee is required to route through all his applications to the
higher ups through the head of the department; where he or she F
is working. The object and the purpose appears to be that the
head of the department should know the grievance, if any, of
his employee which he is trying to project before a superior
forum and it could also be in cases where the employee desires
to apply for employment in a different organization. The object G
... JI
and the purpose of this exercise appears to maintain discipline
in the institution or the organization.

22. In the instant case, on the request made by the
applicant an NOC is granted and thereafter, routing through the H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R.
~
,_
A application through the management is a requirement under the
rules, and its non-compliance thereof would not make her
application invalid. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
since both managements were fully aware that the applicant
intends to shift herself to a college which may be helpful to her
B either to achieve better prospects in her profession or to suit
her convenience. In our view, since it does not involve any public
interest nor it would effect the interest of both the managements
in any manner whatsoever, and since there is. substantial
compliance with the requirements of the rules, we cannot
c accept the submission of learned senior counsel Shri S.R.
Singh, appearing for the petitioner while considering the non-
compliance of procedural requirement, it has to be kept in view,
that, such a requirement is designed to facilitate justice and
furthers its ends and, therefore, if the consequence of non-
compliance is not provided, the requirement may be held to be
D
directory. t "

23. In Rule 6 of the Rules, the rule making authority has
used the expression 'shall' and, therefore, it is mandatory and
not directory is the submission of the learned senior counsel.
E This submission of the learned senior counsel need not detain
us for long, since similar issue had come up for consideration
before this court in the case of Mis Rubber House vs. Mis
Excelsior Needle_ Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1989) 2 SCC 813, ,, ~:
wherein this court has observed, that, the word "shall" in its
F ordinary import is obligatory. Nevertheless, the word "shall" need
not be given that connotation in each and every case and the
provisions can be interpreted as directory instead of mandatory
depending upon the purpose which the legislature intended to
achieve as disclosed by the object; design, purpose and scope
G of the statute. While interpreting the concerned provisions, -~ ,.
regard must be had to the content, subject matter and object
of the statute in question.
24. Having examined the rules, let us now take note of the
fact situation as existing in the present case. Dr. Madhu Tandon
H
DR. RAM DEEN MAURYA v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 723
~ [H.L. DATTU, J.]
._,
has obtained NOC from her parent college and also from the A
college where she intends to be transferred. The NOC issued
by both the colleges was earlier in point of time than that of
NOC granted to Dr.Ram Deen Maurya. However, the case of
management of D.A.V. Post Graduate College authorities is
that the NOC granted to Dr. Madhu Tandon was not by the B
management of the institution, but by the President and
Assistant Secretary, who were not authorized to issue such No
Objection Certificate. The High Court while considering this
issue, has looked into the records maintained by the college
authorities and on facts has come to the conclusion that the c
NOC issued to Dr. Madhu Tandon is in order and, therefore,
was not justified in contending contrary to their own records. In
our view, the-finding on facts by the High Court, by no stretch
of imagination can be criticized as perverse findings. We are
in full agreement with the findings and conclusion reached by
,. D
~
the High Court on facts.

25. For the reasons herein before mentioned, the appeals
are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Cont..Pet. No.90 of 2008 In S.L.P.(C) No.22330/2007 E
.In view of the orders passed in Civil Appeals arising out
of S.L.P.(C) No.22330 of 2007 and S.L.P.(C ) No.11423 of
"-10
. 2008, nothing further survives in this contempt petition which
is, accordingly, disposed of.
F
D.G. Appeals dismissed and Contempt
petition disposed of.

-..._ .:l