HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12007 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12 September 2025 whereby petitioner's representation in pursuance of directions issued by this court earlier for posting near his home district has been rejected. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner had filed writ A No. 9316 of 2025 seeking a direction to the concerned authority to modify the order dated Ist July 2025 whereby he had been transferred to Varanasi. It is submitted that in fact petitioner was seeking transfer in civil police in light of the government order dated 11th June, 2024 and in view of the fact that he had merely one year to superannuation and therefore was required to be posted in his home district in terms of the government order dated 6th May, 2025. 3. It is submitted that despite such directions having been passed in the aforesaid writ petition, impugned order has been passed without indicating any reasoning for rejection of petitioner's representation. 4. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that reasons for rejection of petitioner's representation are self-evident in the order itself. It is submitted that the order impugned clearly indicates that petitioner's posting in terms of the order dated Ist July 2025 has been as per availability of vacancies on the post. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is thus evident that directions had been issued by this court on 21st August 2025 passed in writ A No. 9316 of 2025 directing the authority concerned to decide petitioner's presentation since he had merely one year to superannuate and therefore was required to be posted near his home district. 6. A perusal of the impugned order however does not indicate any reasoning whatsoever for rejecting petitioner's representation except for indicating that it was not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sheshnath Bhardwaj Advoc Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sudhakar Tripathi (S.I. , Pno-862320416) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) found feasible. The aspect with regard to availability of vacancies has been indicated only with regard to passing of order dated Ist July 2025 but there is no reasoning or deliberation indicated in the impugned order with regard to posting of petitioner in view of his impending superannuation within one year and his being covered by government orders dated 11th June 2024 and 6 May 2025. 7. In the considered opinion of this court, the order impugned is virtually non- speaking in nature. 8. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 12 September 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to the opposite party No.2 i.e. Inspector General of Police, Establishment, Lucknow to pass orders afresh in the light of directions issued by this court dated 21st August 2025 passed in writ A No. 9316 of 2025 specifically adverting to claim of petitioner for being posted near his home district for choice posting in terms of his impending superannuation within a period of one year as contemplated in government orders dated 11 June 2024 and 6th May 2025. Necessary orders shall be passed by the concerned authority expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. 9. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. October 10, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 12007 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench