HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9090 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No.1 & 2, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Sri Prashant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided. 3. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 18.08.2025, which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder :- "Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court be kept on record. Heard. Under challenge is the order dated 09.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for being transferred to Gautam Budh Nagar on account of the illness of her son has been rejected on the ground that there are no vacancies available in Gautam Budh Nagar. The matter pertains to a lady Assistant Teacher whose son is having a high risk of Austim. The King Georges Medical University, Lucknow vide its certificate dated 10.10.2023, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition considering the aforesaid has advised the son of the petitioner to undergo occupational therapy Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahendra Pratap Singh, Adarsh Srivastava, Akhand Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Prerana Srivastava .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Basic Edu. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) sessions five days a week without break for an initial period of one year until noticeable progress in his development is observed. Subsequent thereto, the Medical University vide its certificate dated 01.03.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit has advised for continuation of the occupational therapy and other therapy sessions without interruption for two years followed by a comprehensive reassessment of the child's progress. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner is posted at Hardoi, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 7224 of 2024 Inre; Ms. Prerana Srivastava VS. State of U.P and Ors seeking consideration of her transfer to either the National Capital Region or in the alternative in Lucknow. The writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 02.09.2024, a copy of which is annexure 10 to the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation and the competent authority was directed to decide the same in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner only represented for her transfer to Gautam Budh Nagar and not Lucknow which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 09.07.2025 on the ground that vacancies are not available at Gautam Budh Nagar. Refuting the same, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the list annexed as annexure 4 to the supplementary affidavit indicating the "deficiency" and "surplus" teachers so far as it pertains to the Gautam Budh Nagar per which as per specific averment made in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit, there is deficiency of 57 Assistant Teacher in Gautam Budh Nagar and 45 Assistant Teachers surplus in district Gautam Budh Nagar meaning thereby that 12 posts are lying vacant even after adjustment and thus it is contended that the petitioner can easily be accommodated on any of the 12 posts which are lying vacant in district Gautam Budh Nagar on the post of Assistant Teacher. Further, contention is that the petitioner is also willing to be accommodated as an Assistant Teacher at Lucknow more particularly when almost her entire leave has been spent in the medical treatment of her son. Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instructions pertaining to the vacancy position at Gautam WRIA No. 9090 of 2025 2 Budh Nagar as well as at Lucknow of the Assistant Teacher. List in the next week as fresh." 4. Today, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 states on the basis of oral instructions that the order impugned dated 09.07.2025 may be set aside, leaving it open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. Considering the aforesaid statement as given by Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, the order impugned dated 09.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. 6. The respondent No.3 would pass a fresh order in accordance with law, which order would be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of. September 1, 2025 cks/- WRIA No. 9090 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench