Substantial compliance in teacher transfer rules upheld where NOCs existed and no prejudice arose from procedural deviation.

Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005 required a transfer application to be submitted to the Director, Higher Education through the legally constituted management with the written consent of both managements. The Supreme Court treated filing before the Director as mandatory, but held that routing the application through management was directory in the facts because both managements had already issued NOCs, were aware of the transfer, and no prejudice or public interest failure was shown. The Court also sustained the High Court's factual finding that the respondent's NOC was valid and not perverse, so the transfer challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-compliance with the procedure for routing a transfer application through the management under Rule 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Aided College Transfer of Teachers Rules, 2005 invalidated the respondent's claim for transfer, and whether the prior NOC and the High Court's factual finding on the validity of the NOC issued in favour of the respondent could be sustained.

Analysis: Rule 6 required the transfer application to be submitted to the Director, Higher Education through the legally constituted management along with the written consent of both managements. The provision was examined in its different components. The requirement that the application be filed before the Director was treated as mandatory, but the further procedural requirement of routing it through the management was held not to be fatal in the facts of the case, since both managements had already issued NOCs and were aware of the intended transfer. The Court applied the settled principle that a prescribed manner must ordinarily be followed, but held that procedural requirements designed to facilitate justice may be treated as directory where substantial compliance is achieved and no prejudice or public interest is affected. The Court also accepted the High Court's factual finding that the NOC issued in favour of the respondent was valid and not perverse.

Conclusion: The respondent's transfer application was not invalidated by the procedural objection, and the factual finding upholding the respondent's NOC was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the transfer order failed, and the decision in favour of the respondent was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory procedure is largely complied with and the object of the rule is not defeated, a procedural requirement may be treated as directory rather than mandatory, especially when no prejudice is shown and the factual finding on the supporting record is not perverse.

---