HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12353 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 recommendation dated 17th June 2025 and order dated 1st July 2025. 3. Earlier on 3rd November 2025 following order had been passed:- " 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.1 to 5. 2. Petitioner is granted liberty to correct the date of impugned order in prayer - I during the course of day. 3. It has been submitted that vide impugned order dated 01.07.2025, directions have been issued by the State Government to the Appointing Authority of petitioner to pass appropriate orders regarding his transfer and for appropriate action to be taken on the complaint submitted against petitioner under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 4. Learned State Counsel at the very outset submits that petition is premature since impugned order is only in the nature of recommendation without being acted upon. It is also submitted that a complaint was initially made before the authority indicated in the Act and Internal Complaints Committee has already submitted its recommendations, but in the meantime the complainant made another complaint to the State Government which forms the basis of impugned order. He however does not have any instructions as to the outcome of the recommendations submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee or whether the impugned order has been acted upon. 5. In view thereof, list this case on 12.11.2025, as fresh, in order to enable learned State Counsel to file a short affidavit or to obtain written instructions." 4. It is pursuance thereof, learned state counsel on the basis of instructions submits that subsequently vide order dated 10th November 2025 a new Internal Complaint Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abhay Shukla .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation, Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) Committee had been constituted to consider allegations levelled against petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of instructions also admits that a fresh committee has now been constituted in terms of the Act of 2013. 6. In view of the fact that impugned recommendation and order were being challenged only on the ground that the committee which submitted recommendation was incompetent, the issue stands redressed. 7. In view thereof, the lis does not require any adjudication at this stage. The petition therefore stands consigned to record without any adverse benefit already accorded to petitioner. November 12, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 12353 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench