Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16094 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2923 of 2025 Petitioner :- Om Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Rural Development Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devak Vardhan,Dheeraj Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner, through this petition, has prayed for the following relief:- "i. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Impugned Order dated 21.02.2025 (ANNEXURE No.1) passed by the Opposite Party No. 1 to the extent it relates to the Petitioner, in a most arbitrary, illegal and malafide manner without any application of mind in a non-speaking and non- reasoned manner. ii. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to not relieve the Petitioner from District Mahoba. Pass any other Order or Direction deemed fit and necessary in the interest of justice and allow the Writ Petition with costs in favour of the Petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is working as Village Development Officer, has been attached from District Mahoba to District Banda. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no provision for attachment of the petitioner from one district to another. The attachment order has been passed by respondent no.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned attachment order dated 21.2.2025 has not been passed by the competent authority, which is District Development Officer. The order has been passed by the higher authority i.e. respondent no.1. Shri Diwaker Singh, learned Standing counsel could not indicate from the Service Rules that under which authority the impugned attachment order has been passed. It is a settled law that when a thing is to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all. In State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh (1964 AIR 358), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when a statute provides a particular method for performing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (2002) 1 SCC 633 held that when a power is conferred by law, it must be exercised in the prescribed manner. Clearly the impugned order has been passed without there being any power into the rules. The authority who has passed the impugned order is not empowered under the Rules to pass such order. Admittedly no such power in the rules for "attachment" of an employee has been indicated to the Court by learned Standing Counsel. Consequently the order impugned dated 21.2.2025 (Annexure-1) does not seem to have been passed legally and validly in the eyes of law. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.02.2025, (Annexure 1 to the petition), is set aside. Consequences to follow. However, it would be open for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench