Dr. Anamika Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Dr. Anamika Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No interference with the transfer order; petitioner directed to make a fresh representation within two weeks before the competent respondent authority, to be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a further period of two weeks, by means of reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the appearing parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 — on the ground that, although effected in public interest, the petitioner was singled out as the only Doctor to be transferred 700 kms away from her current place of posting — merits judicial interference. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the transfer order because the petitioner works on a transferable post and the order is general in nature and in public interest, noting it remains open to the petitioner to raise grievances, which should be properly addressed.

Ratio / Principle

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the competent respondent authority within two weeks, which the authority shall look into and consider and dispose of expeditiously, preferably within a further period of two weeks, by means of reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the appearing parties.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 4), WRIT - A No. 8669 of 2025, Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J., order dated 3.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:103072). Petitioner Dr. Anamika Singh Yadav, invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India, challenged a transfer order dated 15.06.2025 on the ground that, though transferred in public interest, she was singled out as the only Doctor to be transferred 700 kms away from her current place of posting; her counsel sought consideration of a transfer to a nearby district, citing aged and ailing parents-in-law and a husband working at NOIDA. Finding the petitioner to be working on a transferable post and the order general in nature and in public interest, the Court did not interfere, disposed of the petition, and directed the petitioner to make a fresh representation within two weeks before the competent respondent authority, to be looked into, considered and disposed of expeditiously — preferably within a further two weeks — by means of reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the appearing parties.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103072

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8669 of 2025

Petitioner :- Dr. Anamika Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 15.06.2025 and the ground for assailing the transfer order is that even though petitioner has been transferred in public interest but she has been singled out as the only Doctor to be transferred 700 kms away from the current place of posting.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that mother in law and father in law of the petitioner are quite aged and ailing and her husband is also working in private establishment at NOIDA and therefore, her request should be considered for transfer to a nearby district.

Per contra, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that the order of transfer is a general order in public interest and any interference in the said order will prejudice the transfer of their employees who have also been enlisted in the said order.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner is working on a transferable post I do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the transfer order which is general in nature and also in public interest, however, it is always open for the petitioner to raise grievance which should be properly addressed.

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make

a fresh representation regarding his claim before competent respondent authority within a period of two weeks, the same shall be looked into and considered and also disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within a further period of two weeks by means of reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all the appearing parties.

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Deepika

Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad