https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173438 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. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173438 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173438