HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12299 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Diwakar Singh, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 10.09.2025 whereby petitioners have been transferred from UP-112, Jalaun to Prayagraj and Gorakhpur Regions respectively. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that earlier petitioners had filed WRIT - A No. - 2846 of 2025 seeking a direction to authority concerned to repatriate petitioners to their parent department, i.e. Civil Police, U.P. The said petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 directing authority concerned to take a decision. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, order dated 24.06.2025 was passed transferring petitioner no.1 from Dial-112 to Civil Police, U.P. It is therefore submitted that once petitioner no.1 has already been transferred from Dial 112 to U.P. Civil Police, there was no occasion to pass the impugned order. It has also been submitted that even otherwise, once repatriation is effected, petitioners had rights of being posted at the place where they were working prior to their deputation. 4. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 31.10.2025, a copy of which is taken on record and has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners on that basis. It is submitted that the earlier order dated 24.06.2025 was passed by an incompetent authority and such a mistake has been rectified by means of impugned order. It is submitted that even otherwise petitioners do not have any Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : M.P. Raju Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary (Head Constable , Pno- 052241084) And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) substantive or vested right of being posted in particular place from where they have been sent on deputation. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, the aspects as indicated and submitted by learned State Counsel are clearly borne out. It is also evident that no posting orders were passed with regard to petitioner no.2 in any case. There does not appear to be any provision in the Service Rules whereby petitioners are required to be posted at the same place where they were earlier working prior to their deputation. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners may be granted liberty to file fresh individual representations before authority concerned seeking their postings, in view of difficulties being faced at the present place of their posting. 7. Considering the innocuous prayer, without adverting to merits of the case, liberty is granted to petitioners to furnish fresh individual representations before opposite party no.2 i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik) U.P., District Lucknow. In case such representations are filed, the same are required to be decided by authority concerned expeditiously in accordance with law. 8. With aforesaid direction, the petition stands finally disposed of. November 3, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12299 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench