HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10414 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kapoor, learned State counsel for opposite parties. 2. Amendment application filed today is taken on record challenging the order dated 6.9.2025 whereby representation of petitioner against transfer has been rejected. 3. Evidently, the amendment sought does not change the nature of case in any manner and therefore, the application is allowed. 4. Consequential amendments shall be incorporated during the course of day. 5. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 14.6.2025 whereby petitioner employed on the post of Lekhpal has been transferred from District Lucknow to Sitapur. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid impugned order is clearly in violation of Rule 24 of the U.P. Lekhpal Services (third amendment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Lekhpal Service Rules 2015') which specifically provides that vacancies in any district shall not exceed 20% of its sanctioned strength but in the present case, while transferring number of Lekhpals in the Lucknow District, vacancies have exceeded between 22% to 40% in another districts. Learned counsel has adverted to the chart indicated in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Savitra Vardhan Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Deepak Verma .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) paragraph 12 of writ petition to substantiate his submission. It is further submitted that despite transfer order having been passed on 14.6.2025, the petitioner has not been relieved, and therefore it indicates that there is no exigency of the transfer. It is next submitted that petitioner's children are studying and are quite small and mid-term transfer will therefore harm their studies. It is also submitted that impugned order has purportedly been passed in pursuance of recommendations made by District Magistrate, Lucknow whereas no such recommendations were ever being made by District Magistrate. 7. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties with submission that transfer is an incidence of service and petitioner has been transferred only to adjoining district.. It is submitted that even as per chart indicated in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, provisions of Rule 24 of the 'Lekhpal Service Rules 2015' are not attracted. 8. Upon consideration of submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed almost three months ago effecting petitioner's transfer from District Lucknow to Sitapur which is adjoining District. From the contents of paragraph 12 of writ petition, specifically the chart indicated therein, it is evident that while all the posts of Lekhpal in Lucknow are currently occupied including that of petitioner, in Sitapur only 76% of the posts are occupied there by leaving a vacancy of 24 %. 9. Rule 24 of the 'Lekhpal Service Rules 2015', therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not come to the aid of petitioner since more than 20% vacancy of the sanctioned strength exists in District Sitapur, to where the petitioner has been transferred and not in Lucknow. It is evidently to fill up such vacancies that petitioner has been transferred. 10. The aspect of any recommendation having been made or not made by the District Magistrate, in such circumstances, is completely irrelevant when the authority issuing transfer order is competent to do so. 11. In view thereof, this Court does not find any good ground to grant WRIA No. 10414 of 2025 2 indulgence. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. September 11, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 10414 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench