JUDGMENT : SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. In the present bunch of writ petitions, interpretation of clause 4 of a transfer policy for inter district and mutual transfer issued by a government order dated 02.06.2023 for teachers working in school run by Basic Shiksha Parishad is under consideration. The said clause is reproduced below: ^^tuin esa Lohd`r in ds lkis{k fnukad 30 vÁSy 2023 rd dk;Zjr v/;kidksa dh la[;k ds 10 Áfr'kr dh vf/kdre lhek rd vartZuinh; LFkkukarj.k fd;s tk;saxsA fdlh tuin ls LFkkukarfjr gksdj tkus rFkk vkus okys f'k{kd ,oa f'kf{kdk dh vf/kdre lhek 10 Áfr'kr gksxhA** 2. Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rishabh Srivastava, learned Advocate for petitioners along with S/Sri Seemant Singh, Rakesh Kumar Pandey, Manoj Kumar Singh, K.R. Singh, Sikhar Trivedi, Neeraj Shukla, Kamal Kumar Kesharwani, O.P.S. Rathore, Vibhu Rai, Navin Kumar Sharma, Pratik Chandra, Man Bahadur Singh, Vinod Kumar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Shashi Kant Mishra, Prathamesh Upadhyay and Suresh Singh for petitioners have submitted that petitioners have been denied from consideration of their applications to transfer at desired district on the ground that there are no vacancy for incoming transfer. Crux of their argument is that interpretation and determination of calculation of 10% of vacancy and to declare zero vacancy for incoming transfer in certain districts is not only contrary to the object of transfer policy but based on incorrect interpretation of referred clause also. 3. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that in a district, if teachers are working more than sanctioned strength, they are also included for determination of 10% of posts available for transfer and accordingly, State has calculated that since there are already surplus teachers, therefore, there will be no incoming transfer but they have allowed outgoing transfer. In a way they have tried to accommodate illegal appointment above than sanctioned posts. 4. Above arguments have been opposed by Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with S/Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State and Ms. In a way they have tried to accommodate illegal appointment above than sanctioned posts. 4. Above arguments have been opposed by Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel along with S/Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava and Manvendra Dixit, learned Standing Counsel for State and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for Board of Basic Education, U.P. at Allahabad and they have supported the calculation and stressed upon a word used in the above referred clause i.e. ^^tuin esa Lohd`r in ds lkis{k fnukad 30 vÁSy 2023 rd dk;Zjr v/;kidksa that both aspects have to be taken into consideration i.e. number of sanctioned posts and number of teachers working in a district and they have submitted that there is no infirmity in the calculation. 5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, for example the calculation in regard to primary rural School where in 11 districts, incoming transfer has been declared as zero is mentioned hereinafter: S. No. District PRIMARY SCHOOL RURAL Assistant Teacher 10% of Working at Incoming Outgoing Sanction Working Vacant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 BAGHPAT 1576 1640 -64 164 0 164 2 CHITRAKOOT 2181 2290 -109 229 0 229 3 G.B. NAGAR 1367 1424 -57 142 0 142 4 GHAZIABAD 890 1183 -293 118 0 118 5 HAPUR 1178 1200 -22 120 0 120 6 KANNAUJ 3054 3374 -320 337 0 337 7 KANPUR NAGAR 3081 3110 -29 311 0 311 8 LUCKNOW 2531 2677 -146 268 0 268 9 MAU 2670 2880 -210 288 0 288 10 MEERUT 2490 2505 -15 251 0 251 11 MUZAFFAR NAGAR 2509 2565 -56 257 0 257 6. It will be apposite to refer the law in regard to interference with policy decision of a State as held by this Court in a recent judgment in the case of Shraddha Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 AHC 4085 and relevant paragraph from 15 to 20 are quoted below: 7. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has not disputed number of sanctioned posts viz-a-viz number of working teachers in above districts. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners has not disputed number of sanctioned posts viz-a-viz number of working teachers in above districts. The only dispute is that in a case where working strength is more than sanctioned strength, whether applications for incoming inter district transfer could not consider as it was declared ‘zero’ and whether permission was correctly granted only for applications for outgoing transfer from said district and thereby some districts are completely excluded from incoming inter-district transfer and petitioners are aggrieved that no transfer is allowed to their desired district. 8. In this regard, following paragraphs of counter affidavit would be relevant: “9. That here, it is also necessary to make it clear that respect of Para 02 (04) of the Transfer Policy framed by the State Government vide Government Order dated 02.06.2023, it has been provided that the cadre of Board's Teacher depends upon the local area (Rural or Urban) in any district and as such the nature of Inter District Transfer is the change of cadre and accordingly claiming transfer is not a matter of right for any teacher because at the time of appointment, a teacher like the Petitioners on her own wishes opted her cadre and after the appointment, she is bound to follow all the service conditions during his/her entire services. 10. That the strength of Board's teachers who come on inter-district transfer and go on inter-district transfer are not the same in all the districts and in such a situation, in the so-called backward districts, the strength of assistant teachers who on inter-district transfer is negligent and in case percentage of 10% is enhanced, then there is great possibility that there shall be scarcity of Assistant Teachers in backward districts which obviously affect the educational interest of the students and taking into the aforesaid situation, the aforesaid decision has been taken. 11. That in the light of the provisions contained under point no. 2(4) of the Transfer Policy framed vide Government Order dated 02.06.2023, as a result after calculating the 10% strength of Assistant Teachers as against the working teachers, vacancies in the so-called districts were declared “Zero.” For the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photo copy of the chart showing the details of vacancies in those different districts are being filed and marked as Annexure-CA-2 to this counter affidavit.” 9. In order to interfere with a decision taken by the respondents in pursuance of referred clause of transfer policy, petitioners have to show that such decision is arbitrary and absolutely contrary to the transfer policy. 10. The figures mentioned in regard to sanctioned strength and working strength are not in dispute. In some of the districts, working strength is more than sanctioned strength. Therefore, State's decision not to allow incoming transfer cannot be said to be arbitrary since these group of districts have been created on the basis of comparison of sanctioned strength and working strength which is in tune of referred paragraph that 10% has to be considered in terms of sanctioned posts and strength of working teachers. 11. In case of a particular district, where there are surplus working strength, if by process of inter-district transfer more teachers are allowed to join, the strength may further increase Ratio of working teachers viz-a-viz sanctioned strength will remain high which cannot be done by way of transfer. 12. In the policy, words are carefully used that transfer will be allowed upto 10% only in comparison of sanctioned posts viz-a-viz working strength. 13. The teachers have joined a particular district (being selected district wise) with open eyes. They have no right to work at their desired district. The transfer policy is a policy of a welfare State and in absence of any evident arbitrariness or a clause contrary to law, there is no scope to interfere with any clause of a transfer policy. As discussed above, there is no arbitrariness in framing of concerned clause or its interpretation. 14. In the above background of analysis and taking note of the judgment passed by this Court in Shraddha Yadav (supra), this Court does not find any substantive material which could warrant interference with a decision taken by the State in pursuance of the referred clause of transfer policy, therefore, no interference is warranted and accordingly, all writ petitions are dismissed.