Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103251 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8585 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dhananjay Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Srivastava,Brajesh Pratap Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Brijesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The challenge to transfer order has no legal basis since all the arguments raised in this writ petition as well as by learned counsel for petitioner were already considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Rahul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2024:AHC:183935-DB and rejected by specific observations and reasons. For reference the relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereinafter :- "8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The judgment under appeal wherein the transfer order of the petitioner- appellant was under challenge has upon consideration of the material on record, held as under:- (i) Transfer is an exigency of service and that a person working on a transferable post has no fundamental right or vested right to claim a particular place or station or posting of his choice. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by the Single Judge in Union of India v. S. L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357. (ii) The appellant and the other petitioners before the Single Judge were employees of the Purvanchal Vidhut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., which is a company registered under the Companies Act. Although earlier they were employees of U.P. State Electricity Board and by Scheme of 2000, they were transferred to the company. Since the company did not frame regulations, the existing service conditions of Board continued to apply as was provided under the clauses 6(9), (10) and (11) of the U.P. State Electricity Reforms Transfer Scheme, 2000. Besides, the service rules of employees will be governed under the Contract Law. (iii) Since no regulations have been framed regarding the transfer of the employees within the DISCOM, the executive instructions issued by the Company will have binding force. (iv) A transfer order can be challenged only on the ground of violation of a statutory rule or on the ground of mala fides. (v) There is no requirement of a company registered under the Companies Act to have any statutory regulations and any administrative direction issued by the competent authority has binding force. This has been so held relying upon the Division Bench of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Jauhary v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (2) AWC 1726 and S. K. Naushad Rahaman and others v. Union of India and others (2022) 12 SCC 1. " 3. Learned counsel for respondents has placed heavy reliance on the aforesaid judgment. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the transfer order and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad