HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12185 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 25.07.2025 transferring petitioner from Prayagraj Division to Meerut Division. Also under challenge is the order dated 29.09.2025 whereby petitioner's representation thereagainst was rejected. 3. From a perusal of record, it transpires that petitioner had earlier filed WRIT - A No. - 9829 of 2025 challenging transfer order. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.08.2025 directing the authority concerned to decide petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof that petitioner's representation has been rejected by means of order dated 29.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel submits that a bare perusal of rejection order will make it evident that petitioner's representation has been rejected primarily on ground of enquiry pending against him with regard to allegations of bungling with regard to purchase of food grains. It is therefore submitted that impugned order has been passed as a measure of punishment and is in conflict of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 592. It is also submitted that petitioner in his representation had taken a specific plea that his mother-in-law is suffering from cancer and petitioner's wife is the sole child due to which petitioner may be retained. It is submitted that aforesaid aspect has not been considered at all in the impugned order. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, Ayush Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Rakesh Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Government Order dated 06.05.2025 particularly paragraph-4(iv) thereof to submit that since petitioner was employed in an aspirational development block, it was incumbent upon opposite parties to have given opportunity to petitioner to provide options for his transfer but the same has been violated. 6. Learned State Counsel has refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the impugned order itself indicates that petitioner's transfer was necessitated due to large scale bungling in the purchase of food grains for which petitioner was also found guilty and punishment order was passed. It is submitted that in his representation, no such cogent ground was taken to allow his representation. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's transfer was effected on 25.07.2025. This Court had earlier granted liberty to petitioner to submit his representation. The representation however is only with regard to retention of petitioner in Prayagraj Division without indicating any other options. 8. It is also evident from record that in terms of paragraph-4(iv) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025, it was incumbent upon opposite parties to have sought options from petitioners with regard to his choice-posting but the same evidently has not been provided in the case of petitioner. It is however evident that such options were provided by petitioner in his representation dated 01.09.2025 submitted in pursuance of directions issued by this Court. Evidently, the said options have also not been considered in the impugned order. The transfer order appears to have been passed only on ground of allegations levelled against him and pendency of proceedings. 9. In view thereof, the matter is remitted for consideration afresh by opposite party no.3 i.e. Food Commissioner U.P., Food and Civil Supplies Department, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow to take a decision with regard to options which were given by petitioner in his representation dated 01.09.2025. Petitioner shall be at liberty to submit any other option apart from the options which were submitted by him in his representation dated 01.09.2025. Such an exercise shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph-4(iv) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025. Appropriate decision by authority concerned shall be taken expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority. WRIA No. 12185 of 2025 2 10. The petition therefore stands disposed of in terms of aforesaid directions. 11. The impugned order shall be subject to final decision taken by the authority. The authority may also consider the personal grounds taken by petitioner in his representation. October 17, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 12185 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench