Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6040 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10132 of 2024 Petitioner :- Neetu Singh Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. /Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sajjad Husain,Sanjay Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Yadav Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Sajjad Jusain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Sandeep Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has challenged the order dated 15.10.2024, whereby petitioner has been transferred from Head Quarter, Lucknow to District - Unnao. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was selected by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board as Junior Clerk on 18.12.2025 and was working under the Consolidation Commissioner, Lucknow when by means of impugned order she has been transferred back to Unnao. In the impugned order it has been stated that the petitioner was transferred by means of order dated 15.05.2018 from Unnao to Lucknow. The order dated 15.05.2018 had subsequently been set aside by this Court by order dated 02.08.2019 and as the petitioner's name was included in the order dated 15.05.2018, as a consequence of the judgment of this Court she is being sent back to District Unnao. 4. When this matter was initially heard, this Court was informed that petitioner has been transferred to Lucknow not by means of order dated 15.05.2018 but by means of order dated 13.07.2012 and prima-facie this Court was of the view that order dated 13.07.2012 have not been set aside, the petitioner had right to continue at Lucknow and accordingly interim protection was granted to the petitioner. 5. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that in the service rules governing service conditions of the petitioner are known as U.P. Consolidation Departmental Ministreal and Draft Staff Service Rules, 1980 (as amended in 2007) (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1980"). In the said Rules, 1980 posts of Head Quarter and Subordinate Offices were separate and their appointing authorities are mentioned separately under Rule 3 of the Rules, 1980 the appointing authority for Head Quarter staff is Additional Commissioner, Consolidation and the appointing authority for the district subordinate office staff is Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 6. It was the case of the State that seniority list of the clerks who were at Head Quarter and subordinate offices have always been prepared separately and accordingly separate cadre exists at both the places. It is stated that petitioner after her selection was appointed in Unnao which is subordinate office and it is by means of order dated 15.05.2018 that she was transferred to Head Quarter. When consolidated seniority list of the clerks who were in Head Quarter as well as District Offices was prepared, where name of petitioner finds mention at Serial No. 1118. This aspect of the matter that there are separate cadres and not one State Cadre was raised before this Court in Writ Petition No. 15692 of 2018 - Ram Suresh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, where order dated 15.05.2018 was assailed, which infact was seniority list indicating that petitioner has been assigned Head Quarter. 7. After examining entire service rules, this Court was of the view that cadre existing at Head Quarter and Subordinate Offices is distinct and separate and accordingly a combined seniority list could not have been prepared and hence quashed the order dated 15.05.2018. 8. Without entering into the other facts and controversy including the complaints made against the petitioner, in the light of aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that once petitioner has been shown to be in the cadre of Subordinate Offices cadre and being posted at Unnao, then she would have no right to be included in the cadre of clerks at Head Quarter and consequently, could not have been transferred to Lucknow by order dated 18.05.2018. 9. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 02.08.2019 in Writ Petition No. 15692 of 2018. Accordingly, no ground can be shown by the petitioner from which it may be held that petitioner is entitled to be posted at Head Quarter. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed in compliance of the directions of the writ Court, accordingly, claim of petitioner in the present writ petition id devoid of merit and is accordingly, rejected. 10. Considering the fact that the State has transferred all the persons who are not entitled to hold post either in the subordinate offices or at Head Quarter, contrary to their posting, the State is further directed to ensure that directions of the writ Court in Writ Petition No. 15692 of 2018 are complied with and persons who are in Head Quarter Cadre are posted at Head Quarter and employees who are in Subordinate Office cadre are posted at the district offices. In case any anomalies are found in the posting of staff, consequent transfers shall be made. 11. With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands dismissed. Interim order granted earlier stands vacated. 12. It is provided that in case petitioner appears for the competent authority at Unnao to join her duties, she will be permitted to join. Order Date :- 28.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench