Disposed¶18

Mohd. Rashid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2025WRIA/13811/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Choice posting on medical/family grounds; Class III post transfer Basti Gonda Lucknow; Clause IV (iii) Government Order 06.05.2025; Senior Assistants vacancies Lucknow vs vacancy ratio Etah; Article 226 writ; fresh representation next annual transfers; WRIT-A No. 13811 of 2025; disposed of; Manish Mathur, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Immediate choice posting/transfer not granted; petitioner given liberty to submit a fresh representation in the next annual transfer cycle for consideration of choice posting; petition finally disposed of. ¶18

Mohd. Rashid vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13811 of 2025

Mohd. Rashid

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Services Lko. And Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Savita Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 7

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶10

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 07.11.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for being posted either at Basti, Gonda or Lucknow on a Class III post has been rejected. Prayer has also been made for a direction to opposite parties to consider petitioner's grievance for transfer to aforesaid places in terms of Clause IV (iii) of Government Order dated 06.05.2025.

¶11

It has been submitted that earlier as well, petitioner had filed Writ - A No. - 10608 of 2025 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 12.09.2025 directing authority concerned to consider petitioner's grievance. It is in pursuance thereof that impugned order has been passed. 4. It has been submitted that petitioner is seeking such transfer in view of fact that he is suffering from multiple illnesses and also due to problematic family conditions. It is submitted that a number of such posts are available in District Lucknow where petitioner can be adjusted.

¶12

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned State Counsel has been

¶13

WRIA No. 13811 of 2025

¶14

¶15

provided written instructions dated 08.12.2025, which are taken on record and as per which petitioner had been posted earlier in District Gonda for 22 years whereafter he has been posted in District Etah since year 2021. It is submitted that although five posts of Senior Assistants are vacant in Lucknow but the ratio of vacancies in District Etah is higher due to which petitioner is required to be continued in the said District. It is also submitted that none of the illnesses referred to by petitioner in the representation are of such a serious nature which would require his posting only at Lucknow.

¶16

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that petitioner's home District is Basti and prior to posting in District Etah in year 2021, he had been posted in District Gonda for 22 years. Although instructions clearly indicate five posts of Senior Assistants being vacant in district Lucknow but since petitioner does not seem to be ailing with any substantial ailment, choice posting may not be required in terms of Clause IV of said Government Order.

¶17

However, liberty is granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation before authority concerned in the next annual transfers requiring such choice posting, which may be considered by authorities concerned.

¶18

With aforesai d direction(s), the petition stands finally disposed of .

¶19

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶20

December 9, 2025

¶21

kvg/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Rashid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Rashid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Audhesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Tech. Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Jasmin Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chif. Secy. Deptt. of Secondary Edu. Lko. and 7 Others

Jaskaran Singh Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Dinesh Singh Sachan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addi. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt.Lko. and Another

Mohd. Rashid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services Lko. and Another

Saurabh Chandra Dubey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others