Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37496 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7046 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jagjiwan Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Ayush Deptt. Anubhag Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from District Jhansi to District Firozabad. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that impugned transfer order has been passed in ignorance of Government Order dated 06.05.2025 particularly in view of fact that petitioner's son Yatharth is a student of Class-X for the sessions 2025-26 and would be requiring to face Board examinations in Jhansi itself. It is therefore, submitted that in case petitioner would be compelled to join in pursuance of impugned transfer order studies of petitioner's son would be severely disturbed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education, Madras and others Vs. O. Karuppa Thevan and another reported in 1994 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 666 as well as judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No. 21105 (SS) of 2019. 5. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submissions that transfer is an exigency of service and there is no vested right for the petitioner to continue in a particular district of own choice. It is submitted that petitioner even otherwise has continued to be posted in the same division for the past 13 years. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and material on record, it appears that paragraph no. 5 (iii) of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 clearly prescribes exemption of such employees whose children are studying since such transfer hampers studies. It is evident as per certificate of school concerned that petitioner's son is currently studying in class-X and therefore would be facing board examination. The aforesaid aspect has already been dealt by Supreme Court in the case of Director of School Education (supra) in paragraph no. 2, which is as follows:- "2. The tribunal has erred in law in holding that the respondent employee ought to have been heard before transfer. No law requires an employee to be heard before his transfer when the authorities make the transfer for the exigencies of administration. However, the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that in view of fact that respondent's children are studying in school, the transfer should not have been effect during mid- academic terms. Although t here is no such rules, we are of the view that in effecting transfer the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. The learned counsel counsel appearing for the appellant was unable to point out that there was such urgency in the present case that the employee could not have been accommodated till the end of the current academic year. We, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal, direct that the appellant should not effect that transfer till the end of the current academic year. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs." 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, liberty is granted to opposite parties either to continue petitioner in the same division or in case it is impossible to do so, to consider his transfer to any adjoining district. 8. It is submitted that with regard to aforesaid grievance, the petitioner has already submitted a representation before the authority concerned but seeks to move fresh representation before respondent no. 3 i.e., Director, Ayurvedic Services, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, U.P. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, the petitioner is granted liberty to move a fresh representation within a period of three days from today before opposite party no. 3 i.e., Director, Ayurvedic Services, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow, U.P. , who shall consider and decide the same in terms of observations made above, within a period of two weeks on receipt of the representation along with certified copy of this order. 10. Till decision of petitioner's representation, the petitioner shall not be compelled to join in pursuance of the impugned transfer, order at the transferred place. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench