HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12374 of 2025 Court No. - 18 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Abhishek Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- "(i) A writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 1, contained as Annexure No. to this writ petition. (ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding opposite parties to post the petitioner at District Ayodhya where petitioner's wife is working as Assistant Teacher or any other District adjacent to the District. Ayodhya like District Barabanki or District Ambedkar Nagar." Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was working in the District Barabanki wherefrom he was transferred to District Mau and thereafter, within span of one year, he has again been transferred from District Mau to District Etah, which is about 700 kms away. He submitted that petitioner's wife is working in District Ayodhya and looking into the same, this Court has passed the order in Writ-A No.7026 of 2025 to sympathetically consider the request of the petitioner for his transfer at a place nearby District Ayodhya but the same has been rejected on the flimsy ground. He further argued that the reasons which have been shown in the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shiva Murati .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) rejection order is that the petitioner has worked in District Barabanki for about five years and, therefore, looking into the exigency of work, earlier he has been transferred from District Barabanki to District Mau and then from District Mau to District Etah. He submitted that one identically situated Executive Officer, namely, Umesh Pasi, who has completed more than five years in District Ambedkar Nagar, has again been posted in District Ambedkar Nagar, which shows the act of the authorities, who are taking decision in such an arbitrary manner. Concluding his arguments, he submitted that the order impugned dated 4.8.2025, whereby the request of the petitioner has been rejected, is erroneous and has been passed on the wrong pretext, therefore, the same may be quashed. On the other hand, Mr. S.M. Singh Royekwar, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the contention aforesaid and submitted that under the policy, an Executive Officer can work in one District only for three years in one time and since the petitioner has completed five years in District Barabanki, therefore, he has been transferred from District Barabanki to District Mau and looking in to the exigency of work, he has again been transferred from District Mau to District Etah. He further submitted, on the basis of instructions dated 17.11.2025 sent by Special Secretary, Government of U.P., that there was serious allegation against the petitioner and an enquiry was also instituted, vide letter dated 13.11.2025 and that is, with respect to the District Mau and, therefore, he has been transferred from District Mau to District Etah. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the petitioner has been transferred from District Mau to District Etah, i.e., about 700 kms away. The working period admittedly in District Mau is about 14 months whereas the petitioner may serve in any one district for three years. When this Court examines the impugned order dated 4.8.2025 passed in compliance of the order dated 2.7.2025 passed, in Writ-A No.7026 of 2025, it reveals that the transfer of the petitioner has been made, looking into the exigency of the services of the petitioner at District Etah. From the instructions dated 17.11.2025, which is placed before this Court, it is WRIA No. 12374 of 2025 2 apparent that the situation is otherwise as it has been mentioned in the impugned order whereas there are serious allegations against the petitioner as the direction has been given on 13.11.2025 for contemplating an enquiry against him. It seems that the authority, which has passed the order, has tried to circumvent the direction issued by this Court and, therefore, he did not mention that there are some charges/complaints. This Court has noticed that the reasons and the grounds on the basis of which the impugned order has been passed is non est as the actual reason is otherwise. In this view, the order impugned does not stand on its own legs and, therefore, the same is against the settled proposition of law as is held in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, NewDelhi, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405. Consequently, the order dated 4.8.2025 passed by the respondent no.1 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.1, i.e., Principal Secretary, Urban Development, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow is directed to take fresh decision regarding the transfer of the petitioner to a nearby area of District Ayodhya, where the wife of the petitioner is posted. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is hereby allowed at the admission stage. November 24, 2025 Ram Murti WRIA No. 12374 of 2025 3 (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench