Manish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and Another

This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 12070 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning the validity of the order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the respondent rejecting the representation made by the appellant against the order of posting dated 14.06.2025 on promotion qua the place of posting has been dismissed.

¶10

The appellant, who was working as Assistant Statistical Officer and posted at Firozabad, was promoted to the post of Additional Statistical Officer by order dated 16.10.2024, wherein it was indicated that the posting orders on promotion would be separately issued. On 14.06.2025, the posting orders were issued, whereby the appellant was given posting at District Rampur.

¶11

2

¶12

SPLA No. - 439 of 2025

¶13

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant, along with four others, filed Writ-A No. 7956 of 2025 on various grounds individual to the five petitioners.

¶14

The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.07.2025, indicating that as considering the petitioners’ grievance would entail factual aspects, granted liberty to them to file fresh individual representation before respondent No. 2, i.e., Director, Agricultural Statistics and Crop Insurance and it was required of the respondents to decide the representation by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶15

The appellant made a representation, inter alia , on the ground that he was resident of Etawah and his wife was posted as Assistant Professor at Jhansi and his children are minor and that the place of posting at Rampur was 300 Kms. from his hometown and 500 Kms. from Jhansi and, therefore, instead of Rampur, he may be posted at Mainpuri, Auraiya or Jhansi Division.

¶16

The representation was considered and by order dated 25.08.2025, the same was rejected, inter alia , indicating that the Government employee has to perform duties of his office along with looking after his family and that at the time of annual transfers, attempt would be made to adjust the appellant.

¶17

Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ - A No. 12070 of 2025. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that it was not a case of simple transfer but of posting on promotion and in the written instructions it was indicated that in District-Rampur, none is posted as Statistical Officer nor even a Computer Operator and posting of at least one person was essential, whereas at Jhansi, one person is posted as Computer Operator, who looks after the work of Statistical Officer as well and did not find any reason to grant indulgence in the matter. However, learned Single Judge noticed the indication made in the order that appellant's grievance would be considered at the time of routine annual transfer and consequently, petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶18

3

¶19

SPLA No. - 439 of 2025

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions pertaining to the distance of place of posting from appellant's hometown and place of his wife's posting, i.e., Etawah and Jhansi, respectively. Submissions were made that policy of the State for posting husband and wife at the same place has been violated and though the appellant was prepared to be posted anywhere near Etawah/Jhansi, no consideration has been made to the said offer made by the appellant and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside and the respondents be directed to pass appropriate orders.

¶21

Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶23

The plea raised by the appellant, only on account of the fact that the place of posting is at some distance from his hometown and the place of his wife's posting, cannot be a ground sufficient for the purpose of questioning the validity of the order passed by the respondents.

¶24

It is an admitted fact that the appellant can be posted anywhere in the State and, therefore, to question the validity of the order of transfer, only on account of the distance, cannot be countenanced in a large State like Uttar Pradesh.

¶25

So far as claim made, based on the policy of the State in posting the husband and wife at the same place is concerned, wife of the appellant is posted as Lecturer at Veerangana Maharani Laxmibai Women Government College, Jhansi, which is not a transferable job. If the policy of posting of husband and wife at the same place was to be implemented, based on the place of appellant’s wife’s posting, the appellant would be required to be kept posted only at Jhansi as his wife, in any case, would always remain posted at Jhansi and, therefore, the plea raised on that count also, apparently, cannot be countenanced. Respondents, as noticed hereinbefore, have clearly indicated the requirement of posting of appellant at Rampur in comparison to Jhansi

¶26

4

¶27

SPLA No. - 439 of 2025

¶28

and, therefore, the prerogative of the employer in taking a decision/call in this regard cannot be questioned.

¶29

The appellant has failed to point out any illegality, worth the name, in the order impugned so as to question its validity. In view thereof, no case of interference is made out in the appeal.

¶30

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed leaving it open for the respondents to take an appropriate call at the time of annual transfers/posting, as observed/assured while deciding the representation.

¶31

(Jaspreet Singh,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶32

December 18, 2025 P.Sri.

¶33

Digitally signed by :- PUNEET SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vishram Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Ram Gopal Sharma @ Ram Gopal Shrma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co-Operative U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Santram Alias Santram Kanaujia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Deep Mala Shukla and Another Vs M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. Thru. Chief Financial Manager and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Shahjalalpur, Biswan Sitapur Thru. Its Pradhan Vs Sunjeet Pandey and 4 Others

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.D. Sharma and Associates , Haryana