HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15806 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that the writ petitioner is a Senior Assistant in Finance and Revenue Department and posted as a Reader in the office of the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Amroha and earlier, the writ petitioner was posted as Peshkar in the office of Tehsildar, Amroha and by virtue of order dated 05.03.2024, he was transferred from the office of Tehsildar, Amroha to office of the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Amroha, however, approximately within a period of 1 year and 3 months, now the impugned transfer order has been passed on 15.06.2025 by District Magistrate, Amroha transferring the writ petitioner from the post of Reader in the office of the Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Amroha to the post of Reader in the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha. 3. Questioning the said transfer order the writ petitioner along with others who had also been transferred, had preferred Writ-A No.8682 of 2025, Rajeev Singh and others vs. State of U.P. which on 03.07.2025, came to be disposed of requiring the writ petitioner to prefer a representation which was directed to be decided within a period of four months considering the Government Order dated 13.05.2022, pursuant whereto the writ petitioner represented the matter. Now, the impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Amroha on 17.09.2025 negating the claim of the writ Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Chandra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rajeev Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner. 4. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the order dated 17.09.2025 as well as the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 transferring the writ petitioner cannot be sustained, as the writ petitioner ought to have been retained in a place, where he was transferred pursuant to the order dated 05.03.2024 for at least three years. However, even before the lapse of three years, he is being sought to be transferred. Submission is that once the Court in its order dated 03.07.2025, in Writ-A No.8682 of 2025, had directed the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner regarding the transfer while being retained at a place, where he is posted in the light of the Government Order dated 13.05.2022, then it is not open for the respondents to take another ground while ignoring the mandate of the Court. He submits that there is no complaint or anything adverse against the writ petitioner. 6. Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that whatever might be, the transfer policy is not a statutory rule, but it is a guideline, and thus, it is flexible according to the facts and the circumstances which may emanate. Further submission is that here, the writ petitioner is being sought to be transferred and posted in place of Sri Jitendra Singh, against whom, there was complaint regarding non-performing of duty and it is the writ petitioner who has been assigned the said job in administrative exigency. Submission is that it is not a transfer outside the district, but from one office to another office that too which is under the District Magistrate. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 8. Facts are not an issue. It is not an issue that the writ petitioner has been transferred by virtue of the order dated 15.06.2025 from the post of Reader in the office of Addl. District Magistrate (F & R), Amroha to the office of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amroha. Though there happens to be a transfer policy, wherein there is a provision of retention of an employee for three years and thereafter being transferred, but the transfer policy is not a statutory rule, but a guideline. In the present case, the Court finds that looking into the performance of the writ petitioner, his duty was required at the transferred place and thus, the writ petitioner has been transferred. Moreover, it is not a case for intra-district transfer, as it is transfer from one WRIA No. 15806 of 2025 2 office to the other, probably in the same compound itself. 9. Accordingly, no good ground is made to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. October 29, 2025 N.S.Rathour WRIA No. 15806 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad