RAJU SINGH (CONSTABLE , PNO - 882810302) v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND 3 OTHERS
WRIA/7214/2025 · 2025-07-23
Manish Mathur
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 149821 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 149821 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42376 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7214 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raju Singh (Constable , Pno - 882810302) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 22.02.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for transfer from District Etah to Commissionerate, Kanpur Nagar in pursuance of circular dated 22.06.2017 and guidelines dated 11.06.2024 for the sessions 2024-2025 has been rejected. A further prayer for a direction to concerned authority to consider petitioner's case for transfer from Etah to Kanpur Nagar has also been sought. 3. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's representation on the ground that he has been posted for more than 15 years in District Kanpur Nagar and is therefore against provisions of paragraph 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 22.06.2017. 4. It is submitted that however the chart indicated in the impugned order showing petitioner as having been posted for a period of more than 15 years in District Kanpur is erroneous and that in fact petitioner has been posted in District Kanpur for less than 15 years due to which his representation could have been considered. 5. Learned State counsel has been provided written instructions dated 22.07.2025, which are taken on record and as per which, it is admitted that the chart indicated in impugned order was incorrect and a correct chart has been indicated in the instructions in paragraph 5 which indicates that petitioner has not yet completed 15 years in District Kanpur. The instruction also indicates that the clerk concerned who submitted the incorrect
data has been suspended and preliminary inquiry has also been held. 6. In view of aforesaid written instructions admitting their error, the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.
A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no.2 i.e. Additional Director General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to reconsider petitioner's representation for transfer from District Etah to Commissionerate District Kanpur Nagar in pursuance of Circular dated 22.06.2017, issued by the Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Uttar Pradesh Lucknow and also in pursuance of guidelines for the Sessions 2024-25 dated 11.06.2024 and in terms of written instructions dated 22.07.2025. 7. Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 23.7.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench