HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 15044 of 2025 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Instructions filed today is taken on record as Appendix 'A'. 2. Heard Shri Onkar Nath, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is that while he was posted as District Conservation Officer, District Aligarh, a transfer order came to be passed by the Director, Internal Accounts and Audit, U.P. at Lucknow transferring the writ petitioner on the post of Accountant from Aligarh to Lucknow. The writ petitioner in aggrieved against the same preferred a objection/ representation dated 18.06.2025 requesting that the writ petitioner may not be transferred as his elder son aged about 14 years is handicapped by both legs and the disability is 80% and in view of transfer policy dated 06.05.2025 for the year 2025-26 Clause 5(IV), there is a clear prohibition that the writ petitioner cannot be transferred once there is a disability of the closest family member which includes his son. Since the said representation was not decided so the writ petitioner preferred Writ- A No.10601 of 2025 (Aurn Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.), which came to be dispose of on 29.07.2025 requiring the competent authority to decide the representation. Until the same is decided, no relieving be done, if he has not been already relieved. Thereafter now on 22.08.2025, the Director, Internal Accounts and Audit, U.P. at Lucknow has rejected the representation. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submites that the transfer order as well as the order rejecting the representation cannot be sustained for a single Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Onkar Nath Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Arun Pratap Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) moment particularly, when it is the case of the writ petitioner that his son is physically disabled and thus, writ petitioner could not have been transferred in view of expressed provision contained under Clause 5(IV) of the transfer policy. He submits that the ground for taken in the order impugned that the writ petitioner has not submitted the application online that too within the time stipulated therein and thus, the case of the writ petitioner could not be considered, is not justified particularly, when there is no dispute to the disability of the son of the writ petitioner and also the question relatable to the transfer policy giving protection to the same. He further submits that there are several vacancies lying vacant in Aligarh itself against which the writ petitioner can be accommodated. 5. Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that as per the transfer policy as well as the circulars dated 05.06.2025 and 09.06.2025, the request with respect to transfers either for transferring or for non-transferring and retention is to be made online that too by 09.06.2025, but here in the present case as per the own showing the writ petitioner, the said request was made on 18.06.2025, thus, there was nothing on the table of the authority to take decision about the grievance of the writ petitioner. However, he submits that the competent authority shall endeavour to consider the case of the writ petitioner sympathetically for retention in Aligarh itself, subject to vacancies being there. 6. I heard the submission so made across the Bar and perused the records. Facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner holds a transferable post and a transfer policy came to be issued by the State Government on 06.05.2025 for the year 2025-26. As per the circulars, so noted above, the application seeking request for retention of the transfer is to be made by 09.06.2025. However, the request of the writ petitioner as per the own showing of the writ petitioner is made on 18.06.2025 that too manual and not online i.e. offline. In absence of any challenge raised to the transfer policy/ circulars issued thereon, this Court cannot come to rescue of the writ petitioner particularly, when an act is to be done in a particular manner then it cannot be done in any other manner. Moreover thus, interference is declined. However, the writ petition stands disposed of requiring the second respondent i.e. Director, Internal Accounts and Audit, U.P. at Lucknow to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for being retained in District Aligarh or a nearby district, subject obviously to the availability of the vacancies therein, within 15 days from the date of the WRIA No. 15044 of 2025 2 production of the certified copy of the order. 5. The present order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case bearing in mind the disability of the son of the writ petitioner and it may not be construed to be a precedent for others. October 15, 2025 Gurpreet Singh WRIA No. 15044 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad