Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21590 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4091 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shilpa Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. And 5 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 31.12.2024 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. Wazirganj, 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 Peon 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.21 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.9065 of 2024; Shilpa Devi vs. State of U.P. & 5 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 11.11.2024. 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. Wazirganj, District-Gonda on the post of Peon. 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-Wazirganj 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. He has further submitted that the petitioner is serving on Class-IV post i.e. Peon and she is a widow lady having two children. He has further submitted that normally the transfer of Class-IV employee is avoided unless there is some compelling reason or circumstance, therefore, the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner may be considered sympathetically. 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 explanation of the petitioner by affording an opportunity of hearing she has been transferred on the same post i.e. Peon 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 post of Peon. 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 not inclined to interfere in the impugned transfer order dated 31.12.2024, but considering the fact that the petitioner is a widow lady having two children serving on Class-IV post, therefore, she is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation to the opposite party No.3 i.e. the District Magistrate, Gonda taking all pleas and grounds which are available with her enclosing therewith all relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the representation within fifteen days from today, and if such representation is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time, the same shall be considered and decided by the authority concerned strictly in accordance with law by a speaking and reasoned order with expedition, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order along with representation and the decision thereof be intimated to the petitioner forthwith. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of finally. . [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench