Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2659 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 175 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dr. Parveen Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar Misra, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 19.12.2024 whereby the respondents have decide the representation of the petitioner as per the directions of this Court dated 02.12.2024 passed in Writ A No. 11482 of 2024 preferred by the petitioner. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a person with disability to the extent of 50% and is suffering from Locomotor disability and his wife is also working at Kanpur in primary school. It is submitted that initially by means of order dated 14.10.2024 the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Scientist Officer/Prabhari Forensic field Unit, Bada Chauraha Kanpur City to Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannauj. 4. The said order was assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ A No. 11428 of 2024 which was decided by means of order dated 02.12.2024 where this Court had directed that representation of the petitioner to be considered by the Additional Director General of Police (Technical Services), Police Head Quarter, Lucknow and pass a fresh order considering the fact that petitioner was a person with disability and his case was to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. 5. It is as per the directions of this Court the impugned order has been passed. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that the respondents have not considered the directions of this Court and have also not taken into account the fact that the petitioner is a person of disability and accordingly submits that the petitioner could not have been transferred by means of order dated 14.10.2024 to Kannauj. 6. He further submits that according to the Government Order dated 15.09.2003, the State Government has provided that as far as possible the person with disability should be kept out of the transfer and on account of the aforesaid submission, he submits that the order of transfer dated 14.10.2024 deserves to be set aside along with the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 rejecting his representation. 7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that all the aspects and grounds raised by the petitioner have been duly considered in the impugned order and definite reasons have been indicated for transferring the petitioner from Kanpur to Kannauj. He has submitted that as per the policy of the respondents, firstly a person cannot be posted in his home district belonging to Class- II post as per the Transfer Policy 2024-25 Clause 4(iii) and with regard to the aspect of disability, it has been considered that the petitioner is a very good worker and has been given various appreciation letters and was working in the field unit in Kanpur, it was stated that while working in the field Unit at Kanpur Nagar, he was involved in all the major crimes in the district and it is evident that he has to visit various crime fields to collect evidence. While considering the disability of the petitioner he has been posted in a Forensic Science Laboratory which is desk job where he does not have to move much and accordingly according to the respondents they have passed the aforesaid order considering the grievances raised by the petitioner in the representation. 8. I have heard rival contentions and also perused the record. 9. It is noticed that this Court on the previous occasion had interfered in the matter and also looked into provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 where it is noticed that the guidelines which have been framed by the State Government would be of mandatory nature considering the specific provisions of the Act of 2016. This Court is of the view that the aspect that the petitioner is a disabled person should be duly considered by the respondents and also considered the grievance of the petitioner with regard to transfer and then only implement the order of transfer. It is in compliance of the order of this Court that the impugned order dated 19.12.2024 has been passed. 10. While passing the said order, it was noticed that the petitioner was working for the last 12 years in the field unit at Kanpur Nagar. It was further stated that Kanpur Nagar happens to be home district of the petitioner and he is posted there for the last 12 years in home district. It was also taken into account of the fact that by means of Government Order dated 11.06.2024 it is provided that persons of Class-II post cannot be posted in their home district and considering the fact that the petitioner had been posted in his home district for the last 12 years a decision was taken to transfer him out of his home district in compliance of the aforesaid Government Order. 11. It is further noticed that in the various Forensic Science Laboratories there is huge pendency of cases because of inadequacy of staff and consequently the judicial works in the various courts is suffering because of non-submission of the reports in due time. It is also noticed that the petitioner is a extremely decorated officer of the department and he has done great work while being posted at Kanpur, it was thought that his services should be taken in the Forensic Science Laboratory looking into his expertise. It was also duly considered the fact that at Kanpur Nagar the petitioner was involved in filed work which involved going from place to place and for a person with Locomotor disability this would be difficult for him hence he has been posted in Forensic Science Laboratory which is a desk job which does not involved going to locations. 12. The reasons given in the impugned order, this Court finds that the respondents have adequately considered the grievance of the petitioner and undoubtedly the petitioner has difficulty to move out of his home district but a person cannot be permitted to stay at his home town for 12 years. In case the petitioner is permitted then similar claim would be made by the other persons who would also want to be posted in the home district which is impermissible of the Government Order dated 11.06.2024. 13. In light of the aforesaid, this Court finds that there are sufficient reasons for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Apart from which this Court finds that there is no right of the petitioner to be continued to be posted in the home district. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench