HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9515 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard 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 15.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from District Barabanki to Fatehpur. 3. It has been submitted that as alleged in pargraph-14 of the writ petition, there are various other persons who have remained posted in the District for significantly longer time than petitioner but have been ignored. Arbitrariness has therefore been alleged. It is also submitted that impugned order is as a direct result of first information report lodged against petitioner registered as Case Crime No.857 of 2024 dated 29.09.2024 and therefore is punitive in nature. 4 Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 27.08.2025, which is taken on record and submits that the persons indicated in paragraph-14 of writ petition belong to post of Senior Assistants whereas petitioner is holding the post of Head Assistant and therefore cannot be any parity between the two. 5. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that although the posts may be different but cadre of all the persons is the same and therefore transfer is required to be effected in terms of cadre strength as per Government Order dated 06.05.2025. 6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that the persons indicated in paragraph-14 of the writ petition belongs to different posts altogether and is in fact the feeding cadre of posts of Head Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Samarth Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ramkrishna Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Assistant. The number of posts may therefore be quite different and cadre strength in such circumstances may not be a factor more to determine arbitrariness. 7. It is also evident that first information report had been lodged against petitioner in September, 2024 whereas petitioner has been transferred in the routine annual nature of transfers within the cut off date. 8. In view thereof, this Court does not find any occasion to grant indulgence. 9. The petition therefore being devoid of merits is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs. August 28, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 9515 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench