SHAKIL AHMED FAROOKI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
WRIA/9301/2025 · 2025-07-17
Manju Rani Chauhan
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 72970 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 72970 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:117394 Court No. - 52 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9301 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shakil Ahmed Farooki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Avadhesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
1. Heard Mr. Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Archana Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and to quash the circular dated 19.06.2024 so far it relates to the clause 3, whereby direction has been given to relive and join again the particular school against which teachers have applied for mutual transfer. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the schools of the petitioner in transferred District after counseling as per the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha (Teachers) Posting Rule 2008 and Government order dated 20.08.2022 & circular dated 13.09.2022 issued for the purpose of mutual transfer."
3. Learned counsels appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3 have drawn the attention of the Court to a judgment dated 28.5.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.7638 of 2025 (Archana Sharma vs. State of UP & 3 Others), to contend that the aforesaid writ petition, which was filed on a similar set of
facts praying for similar reliefs, has been dismissed in terms of a
reasoned judgment. It is submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision, and present petition may also be decided in the same terms.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the facts of the present case are similar to that of the case of Archana Sharma (supra).
5. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed in terms of the aforementioned judgment in the case of Archana Sharma (supra).
Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad