Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47200 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9069 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Ayush Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 25.07.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Devi Patan Division to Meerut Division. 3. Three-pronged challenge to impugned order is that firstly since petitioner was being transferred from an aspirational Block, opposite parties were required to consider options provided by petitioner in terms of paragraph 4(iv) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025. Secondly, it is submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of complaints levelled against him and is therefore in violation of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592. Thirdly, it has been submitted that petitioner has been elected as President of District Employees Union, Gonda on 24.07.2024, information of which was supplied to authorities on the same day and was therefore required to be exempted from transfer in terms of paragraph 12 of Government Order dated 06.05.2025. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 08.08.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which it has been stated that petitioner has been transferred on account of various allegations leveled against him for which purpose enquiry proceedings have also been initiated against him. 5. Submission of Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State Counsel is that provisions of paragraph 12 would be inapplicable in those circumstances where office bearer of the Union stands accused of misconduct as in the present case. It is also submitted that instructions reveal that petitioner's options have been considered and rejected. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident from instructions provided to learned State Counsel that petitioner's transfer is as a result of allegations levelled against him for which enquiry proceedings have also been initiated. The said aspect may be in conflict with law enunciated in Somesh Tiwari(supra). 7. Nonetheless, since petitioner has already submitted his options in terms of paragraph 4(iv) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025, cogent reasons could have been indicated for rejection of options supplied by petitioner. Since it is also stated in instructions that opposite parties were unaware with regard to election of petitioner as President of District Employees Union, the said aspect may also require consideration. 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order dated 25.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass fresh order but only after considering the three aspects indicated herein above. 9. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage. The parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 kvg/- Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench