Gujarat HC upholds transfer of Amreli school principal accused of ‘communal, casteist’ bias to allow neutral inquiry

Sheladiya, who was the in-charge principal of Moladi Primary School in Savarkundla taluka of Amreli district, was transferred to Datardi Primary School in Rajula taluka by an order dated August 21, 2025. Thereafter, as per a representation made by Sheladiya, he was transferred to Khijadiya Kotda Primary School in Babaria taluka in the district by an order dated November 7, 2025. He had challenged the two transfer orders, contending that they were “punitive and malafide”, arising out of complaints.

The government pleader submitted to the court that the allegations are related to the villagers’ complaints. “He is encouraging communal sentiments in the village, and he is even indulging into casteism with the students; and the petitioner is targeting the students belonging to a particular community, particular caste… are differently treated by the petitioner, and without even asking or any request by the guardians, he issues school leaving certificate of those students and is keeping with himself,” the pleader said.

The government pleader also mentioned allegations of “financial irregularity” against Sheladiya and that he had violent fights with his wife at the school using weapons. The government pleader also submitted that Sheladiya had indulged in politics, resulting in “an anger to the extent that the villagers have also threatened the authority that they would lock down the school”.

Considering the submissions, the high court dismissed Sheladiya’s petition, stating that the transfer was “inevitable”.

An order orally dictated in court while dismissing his petition stated, “…there are serious allegations of encouraging communalism and casteism among the students of primary school. It is also stated in the complaint which is annexed with the petition that the petitioner’s wife is also serving in the same school and on account of their domestic problem and disturb matrimonial life they keep quarreling in front of students and sometimes even fight with they they fight with weapons also in front of students which has affected the mental health of the students who are the students of the primary school that is up to the class 8.”
‘Ultimate sufferers would be the students’

Noting that a departmental inquiry to ascertain the complaints against him was underway, the court said in the oral order, “…the fact that the petitioner is serving in a primary school in a village and therefore there may not be any other school in the nearby vicinity. Therefore, if the petitioner is not transferred, there is a possibility, as can be seen from the complaint, that the villagers would boycott the school by locking it down and ultimate sufferers would be the students.”

The court further stated, “…in a small village, the principal or in-charge principal would carry great influence over the students as well as the parents, and therefore when the allegations are labelled against the in-charge principal himself… Even for inquiring (into) the complaint independently and without there being any influence by the petitioner. It was necessary to transfer the petitioner to a nearby place just to ensure that the parents of the students who have made the complaint may fearlessly and neutrally submit their version before the inquiry officer.”

The court inquired with Sheladiya’s advocate why he had not joined either of the two schools he had been transferred to. It also stated that two judgments the principal had relied upon to seek the court’s intervention “could not be relied upon” in the present case.