Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38443 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7292 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amit Mishra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Environment Forest And Climate Change Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad Misra,Tarun Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Verma Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard Dr L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3. 2. Instant writ petition has been filed quashing the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition as well as the order dated 25.04.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, and the consequential relieving order dated 28.04.2025 a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition. A further direction to the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to work and function as Regional Officer in District Kanpur Nagar. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case as set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Environmental Engineer vide the order dated 30.06.2022, he had been transferred from District Lucknow to Kanpur Nagar and he joined there. 4. Subsequent thereto impugned transfer order dated 25.04.2025 was issued by which the petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur Nagar to Agra. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was also relieved vide order dated 28.04.2025. By means of the order dated 25.04.2025, the respondent No.4 has been posted to Kanpur. 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ A No.4973 of 2025 In Re Amit Mishra vs State of U.P. & Ors. 6. This Court vide order dated 06.05.2025, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, directed the respondent No.2 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 26.04.2025 as had been submitted by him aggrieved against his transfer order. 7. In pursuance to the direction issued by this Court, the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 27.06.2025 per which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected. 8. Raising a challenge to the aforesaid orders, instant petition has been filed. 9. Grounds for challenge as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there is a transfer policy for the year 2024-25 governing transfers as has been issued on 11.06.2024, a copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition. Clause 5 (iii) of the said policy specifically provides that in case the husband and the wife both are government servants then as far as possible they should be kept in the same district/place/city. 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that wife of the petitioner is also a government servant, who is working at Kanpur and consequently transfer of the petitioner from Kanpur to Agra would be in violation of the said transfer policy and despite the petitioner having indicated the aforesaid reasons the respondents while rejecting the representation of the petitioner have taken a cavalier view of the matter by contending that as the petitioner has been working since last 3 years at Kanpur and the transfer policy provides that as far as possible the husband and the wife should be kept together consequently it has not been found feasible to retain the petitioner at Kanpur and hence his representation has been rejected. 11. 11. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Writ A No.6956 of 2025 In Re Priyank Misra vs State of U.P. & Ors to contend that this Court has held that although transfer policy may only be a policy but once it has been issued in terms of the Articles 162 and 166 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, would come within the purview of a government order and thus keeping in view the Division Bench of this court in the case of Special Appeal No.564 of 2024 In Re Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P. and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.L. Kalra vs Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., : (1984) 3 SCC 316 the respondents have patently erred in rejecting the representation of the petitioner on the said ground. 12. Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarvepalli Ramaiam (Dead) vs District Collector, Chittoor District & Ors : (2019) 4 SCC 500, State of NCT of Delhi & Anr vs Sanjeev Alias Bittoo : (2005) 5 SCC 181, and Sushil Kumar vs State of Haryana & Ors : (2022) 3 SCC 203 the argument is that the decision making process as has been adopted by the respondents while arriving at the impugned decision i.e. while rejecting representation of the petitioner is vitiated in the eyes of law and thus the impugned order merits to be set aside. 13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 have supported the impugned orders. 14. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 15. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner is aggrieved by his transfer order dated 25.04.2025 whereby he has been transferred form Kanpur to Agra and has also been relieved vide order dated 28.04.2025 and the representation preferred by him against the said transfer order has been rejected vide order dated 27.06.2025. 16. Perusal of the transfer order dated 25.04.2025 would indicate that the same has been passed in the administrative exigency and in public interest. 17. It is settled proposition of law that transfer is an exigency of service and it is sole prerogative of an employer to post an employee at any place and the courts can only interfere where a transfer order is either malicious or against the statutory norms. 18. Impugned transfer order is said to be vitiated on the ground of not following the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024 Clause 5(iii) of which provides that a husband and a wife should invariably be posted together. The contention in this regard is that although the petitioner has been transferred from Kanpur to Agra yet the petitioner's wife who is a government servant is posted at Kanpur and thus the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024 more particularly Clause 5(iii) is being violated which has been held to have the force of law keeping in view the judgments of this Court in the cases of Priyank Misra (supra) and Jitendra Singh (supra). 19. Aforesaid argument and ground is found to be patently fallacious. The reason is that Clause 5(iii) of the transfer policy dated 11.06.2024 itself provides that in case both the husband and wife are in government service then as far as possible they may be kept in the same district/city/place. 20. Use of the words as far as possible would obviously mean that there is no mandate for keeping the husband and wife together in all circumstances. 21. Impugned order of transfer indicates that the petitioner has been transferred in administrative exigency/public interest. 22. The reason as emerges from perusal of the order by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected is that the petitioner has been posted at Kanpur for a period of more than 3 years and consequently it has been found feasible to post the petitioner at Agra more particularly when the Regional Office Agra is highly sensitive office and falls within the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ) and in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the TTZ authority holds regular monitoring and meetings are organized and consequently the petitioner who is an experienced and competent Grade-I Officer is required to be posted in the said office. 23. Considering the aforesaid reasons as have prevailed with the respondents while transferring the petitioner and Clause 5(iii) of the transfer policy itself indicating that it is not mandatory to post husband and wife together consequently judgments of this Court in the cases of Priyank Misra (supra) and Jitendra Singh (supra) would have no applicability in the facts of the instant case. 24. So far as judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sarvepalli Ramaiam (supra), Sanjeev Alias Bittoo (supra) and Sushil Kumar (supra) are concerned, the same pertain to the decision making process. There is no dispute to the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgments yet in the instant case, as per the reasons which had prevailed on the respondents it is apparent that once transfer is an exigency of service and the competent authority has himself taken a decision to transfer the petitioner on the grounds which have prevailed with him consequently it is expected that this Court should not dwell into the grounds which have prevailed in the posting of the petitioner, though, as already indicated above, are found to be reasonable grounds to post the petitioner at Agra. 25. 25. Even otherwise, it merits to be noted that in the earlier round of litigation this Court vide the order dated 06.05.2025 has specifically recorded that the petitioner's transfer order has not been passed against the rules or by an authority who is not competent or in a malicious manner which judgment has attained finality. 26. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The petition being misconceived is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.7.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench