Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26104 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4275 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Talha Ansari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Ajay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pradeep Tiwari,Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 3, Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 4 & 5. 3. On the first date of admission dated 21.04.2025, this Court passed the following order: "1. Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Standing Counsel for State-opposite party nos.1 and 3 and Sri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party nos.4 and 5. 2. As prayed, list on 28.04.2025 as fresh in the list of fresh cases to enable the learned counsel for opposite parties to seek instruction in the matter particularly, on the point as to whether the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 has been passed after seeking prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer concerned." 4. Sri Ran Vijay Singh has shown instructions letter demonstrating that the impugned order has been passed after getting prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer, Lucknow. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been sent to his parent institution, cancelling his attachment from office of Block Education Officer, Malihabad to Composite Vidyalaya Rasulabad, Block Malihabad, District Lucknow. Learned counsel has admitted this fact that the parent institution of the petitioner is composite Vidyalaya Rasulabad, Block Malihabad. However, Sri Pandey has stated that the petitioner, who is serving on class IV post has been sent to his parent institution in violation of guidelines being issued by the superior authority, though, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has disputed this fact also by submitting that petitioner has got no right to be attached in the office of Block Education Officer, Malihabad. 6. On that learned counsel for the petitioner has been confronted to show any legal right of the petitioner to be retained at the place where he was adjusted, no right could be shown to that effect. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, since the impugned order dated 05.04.2025 has been passed after getting prior approval from the District Basic Education Officer and the petitioner has been sent to his parent institution situated at Malihabad itself, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, it is needless to say that the petitioner may approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance strictly in accordance with law, with expedition. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench