Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21591 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4128 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ruchi Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhiuday Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Uday Veer Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1.Heard Sri Abhiuday Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravi Swaroop Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 3, Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Dr. Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.4 & 5. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01.12.2024 and impugned consequential orders dated 15.01.2025, 23.01.2025, 10.02.205 & 18.03.2025 passed by the opposite party No.4 to the extent that the petitioner has been transferred from K.G.B.V. Ityathok, Gonda to K.G.B.V. Mankapur, Gonda, as contained in Annexure Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 to this writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Accountant in K.G.B.V. Ityathok, District-Gonda as petitioner was working prior to impugned order being passed without any hindrance and pay the salary to the petitioner month to month as and when it becomes due." 3. At the very outset, attention has been drawn towards Annexure No.32 of the writ petition which is an order dated 17.10.2024 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition of the petitioner bearing Writ-A No.9031 of 2024; Ruchi Gupta vs. State of U.P. & 4 others. By means of that writ petition, the petitioner had assailed the order dated 01.08.2024 whereby the contractual service of the petitioner was terminated after approval of the District Magistrate. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed for the reason that despite the reply having been submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered by the Competent Authority while passing the impugned order. However, liberty was given to the Competent Authority to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation of the petitioner. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the representation of the petitioner was considered and she was given an opportunity of hearing on 08.11.2024. The Competent Authority in compliance of the judgment and order dated 17.10.2024 reinstated the petitioner in service issuing note of caution transferring her to K.G.B.V. Mankapur, District-Gonda on the vacant post of Accountant. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that though the petitioner has been transferred from one Block to another Block i.e. from Block-Ityathok to Block-Mankapur but for such transfer order a fresh order should have been passed and she should have not been issued a note of caution as it would affect her career. 6. Per contra, learned counsels for the opposite parties have stated that since the termination order has been withdrawn in compliance of order dated 17.10.2024 passed by this Court considering the representation and explanation of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing she has been transferred on the same post i.e. Accountant to another Block so it may not cause any prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as she could have been transferred from one place to another place. As the aforesaid transfer is not beyond the jurisdictional transfer order, therefore, she has been transferred on the vacant post of Accountant. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is misconceived. 7. Learned counsels have further submitted that the transfer being an exigency of service may not be interfered unless there is any violation of rules or malice in law. In the present case, the impugned transfer order has been passed by the Competent Authority without having any prejudice against the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is misconceived. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the transfer being an exigency of service, therefore, it should not be interfered in a mechanical manner and it can be interfered only on limited grounds i.e. if there is any violation of rules/ policy or the transfer order has been passed having malice in law or the authority, who has transferred, is not having jurisdiction to transfer, but none of the aforesaid reasons are being attracted in the present case. Besides, the petitioner has been transferred from one Block to another Block in the same district, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned transfer order. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to cost. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench