HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14899 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Instructions produced today by Sri Gaurav Singh dated 12.12.2025 of Commandant 20th Battalion PAC, Azamgarh are taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Sudist Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that by virtue of the transfer order dated 18.03.2025, he has been transferred from the post of Platoon Commander from Azamgarh to Fatehpur. Challenging the said transfer order, the writ petitioner had preferred Writ- A No. 8981 of 2025 which came to be disposed of on 09.07.2025 directing the writ petitioner to prefer a representation before the competent authority which shall be decided within four weeks. Post filing of the representation now the same has been decided on 23.08.2025 by the Additional Superintendent of Police PAC, Headquarter, Lucknow. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned transfer order as well as the order rejecting the representation cannot be sustained for a single moment particularly when as per the transfer policy so issued by the respondents, the writ petitioner could not have been transferred particularly when he is to retire on 30.11.2026. Submission is that the writ petitioner had outstanding service to his credit and at the verge of the retirement it would be travesty of the circumstances for transferring the writ petitioner to a place at Fatehpur from Azamgarh. He further submits that the transfer order had though been issued in administrative exigencies and public interest but the same is a camouflage as the same is punitive. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudist Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Devendra Kumar Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) 4. Sri Gaurav Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that whatever might the transfer is an incident of service and the writ petitioner cannot resist the transfer particularly when he was in Azamgarh for a period of 9 years and on the basis of certain inputs so received he was being sought to be transferred. He further submits that the transfer policy is not a statutory rule as the same is a guideline and its applicability depends upon the facts and circumstances of an individual case. 5. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, the writ petitioner has been transferred from Azamgarh to Fatehpur on 18.03.2025, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner holds a transferable post. Further, the claim of the writ petitioner had been decided by the respondents and this Court in view of intervening facts and circumstances is not required to act as an appointing authority as what is to be seen is whether the considerations which weighed the authority are justifiable or not. Importantly, once it is not in dispute the writ petitioner remain in Azamgarh for a period of 9 years then it cannot be said that there has been any infraction and further the only right which the writ petitioner can claim in view of the transfer order is with regard to the fact that his claim should be considered in terms of the guidelines and once the guidelines are not the rules and a consideration has been made taking into account overall fact situation then it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere at this stage. 7. Accordingly, interference is declined, application is rejected. October 13, 2025 Rajesh WRIA No. 14899 of 2025 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad