Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49250 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7730 of 2025 Petitioner :- Atul Tripathi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Edu. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kumar Srivastava,Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel for opposite parties no.1, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. Syed Mohd. Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. Short counter affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. Petition has been filed challenging transfer order dated 14.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from District Ambedkar Nagar to District Meerut. Also under challenge is the order dated 08.07.2025 rejecting petitioner's representation. 4. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had filed Writ A No.6977 of 2025 challenging the transfer order. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 02.07.2025 directing the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Lucknow to take a final decision with regard to recommendation made in favour of petitioner. It is in pursuance thereof that the order dated 08.07.2025 has been passed rejecting petitioner's representation. 5. It has been submitted that the impugned orders have been passed as a measure of punishment on complaint being made against him. 6. It is also submitted that the impugned order is in violation of paragraph 3 of the Government Order dated 06.05.2025 inasmuch as two other persons who have been serving in the district for a longer time that the petitioner have not been transferred and therefore also impugned orders are arbitrary. 7. Learned counsel has also submitted that the impugned orders have been passed at the behest of one Brijesh Yadav, who has been transferred in place of petitioner, as would be evident from the fact that in the earlier writ petition, the said person had filed application for intervener. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his allegations that the impugned order has been passed as a measure of punishment. He has adverted to paragraph 4 of the short counter affidavit filed today to submit that two persons, namely one Shiv Ram Verma and Ramjeet, have been posted in the district since 01.09.2012 and 01.08.2012 respectively but have not been transferred on account of the fact that Mr. Verma is suffering from coronary artery disease and in under strict medical supervision. His wife is also a Government Employee posted in Ambedkar Nagar. 9. Similarly Mr. Ramjeet also suffers from coronary artery disease and is undergoing treatment for same while his son was also operated upon in April, 2025. 10. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that twin grounds taken by petitioner for challenging the impugned orders are that they have been passed as a measure of punishment and are arbitrary in nature. 11. So far as the first ground is concerned, an examination of the impugned order makes it evident that it does not pertain to any complaint or allusion to misconduct on the part of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to demonstrate as to how the impugned order can be said to have been passed as a measure of punishment since there does not appear to be any documents supporting the same. 12. So far the second ground is concerned, it is also evident that while two other persons named herein above have been posted in the district for a longer period that the petitioner have been exempted from transfer on the grounds of their serious illness as indicated herein above. One of the persons namely Mr. Verma, has his spouse also in Government employment in the same district and would therefore be covered by the aspect of couple posting. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Subodh/- Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench