HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10463 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Diwakar Singh, 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 22.07.2025 whereby petitioner currently posted as Head Constable has been transferred from Lucknow to Ayodhya. Also under challenge is order dated 25.08.2025 whereby petitioner's representation against aforesaid transfer has been rejected. 3. Primary gist of challenge to impugned orders is that by means of impugned order dated 22.07.2025, petitioner along with another Head Constable namely Archana was transferred from Lucknow to Ayodhya but while the other person has been retained in Lucknow, petitioner has been directed to give her joining at Ayodhya. Arbitrariness has therefore been alleged. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 18.09.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and as per which, both the persons were deputed in the personal security force of Chief Minister but were returned to the Police Headquarters vide order dated 15.05.2025 . Instructions clearly indicates that thereafter in view of security threat to a former Chief Minister, the other person namely Archana was deputed in the personal security of Former Chief Minister at Lucknow due to which she was retained in Lucknow and not directed to be posted at Ayodhya. 5. The aforesaid factors indicated in the written instructions therefore Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Umesh Chandra Shukla, Abhishek Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Priyanka Alias Priyanka Dwivedi (Head Constable , Pno-112381905) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Homes Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) clearly indicate the fact that petitioner's case is not in parity with the other person, namely, Archana since she has been retained in Lucknow only on account of the subsequent order whereby she has been deputed in the personal security of a former Chief Minister. The aforesaid differentiation clearly indicates that there is no arbitrariness in retention of the other person in Lucknow. 6. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs. September 19, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 10463 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench