WRIA/7081/2025 of SUNEET KUMAR SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. DEPTT. OF AGRICULTURE LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 21 November 2025

1. Heard Mr. Ravi Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4.

2. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi and Mr. Alok Kumar Mishra have been heard on behalf of intervenors in terms of Chapter XXII and Rule 5A of the Allahabad High Court Rules.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 15.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from Dundi Block in Barabanki to Dhaurhara Block in the same District apparently on recommendation of the District Agriculture Officer.

4. Earlier on 08.07.2025, the following order had been passed: "1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. Impleadment Application have been filed seeking impleadment of one Prashant Kumar Singh and one Pradeep Kumar Singh who have also been transferred by means of impugned order dated 15.06.2025 whereby petitioner has been transferred from one Block to another in District Barabanki.

3. Although it has been admitted that no-one has joined in place of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjay Mishra, Saurabh Tripathi, Alok Kr Mishra Suneet Kumar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Agriculture Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

petitioner pursuant to impugned order, Applicants who have filed impleadment applications do not appear to be necessary parties but are yet being heard in terms of Chapter 22 Rule 5A of the Rules of this Court.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that impugned transfer order has been passed without indicating either administrative exigency or any public interest. It is submitted that petitioner's transfer has been effected purportedly in terms of recommendations made by District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki but has adverted to letter dated 06.06.2025 (Annexure-2) to submit that District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki in fact has not made any such recommendation and on the contrary has recommended petitioner's continuance.

5. Learned State Counsel has not been provided instructions in the matter with regard to said aspect.

6. List this case on 11.07.2025, as fresh, showing names of Mr. Saurabh Tripathi and Mr. Alok Kumar Misra as counsel for opposite parties.

7. Till the next date of listing, impugned order dated 15.06.2025 so far as it relates to petitioner shall remain stayed."

5. In pursuance thereof, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State and in paragraph 5 thereof, it has been specifically stated that the District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki vide letter dated 06.06.2025 recommended retention of petitioner in the Block Dundi on the ground of increased productivity. It continues to state that however petitioner was transferred since his continuance after merely four years in the said Block was not permissible under Rules.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner elaborating upon his submissions made earlier submits that since the impugned order has not been passed indicating any administrative exigency or any public interest, the same is not in accordance with Rules. It is also submitted that the counter affidavit clearly indicates that the very basis of the impugned order is incorrect.

7. Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for one Pradeep Kumar submits that he had been transferred from Block Dhaurhara to Block Ram Nagar but due to petitioner not joining Block Dundi, his transfer to Block Ram Nagar on personal request also is stayed as a consequence.

8. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Mr. Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for one of intervenor Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh submits that he has been transferred in place of petitioner on his own request and due to passing of the interim order, his transfer order also on the basis of personal request is stayed.

9. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed indicating either recommendation of the authority concerned or on personal request. The order does not indicate any administrative exigency or public interest for passing the transfer order.

10. With regard to petitioner, it is evident that it is not on personal request but on the alleged recommendation of the District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki that the transfer has been effected.

11. However the said ground is clearly belied in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit itself where the opposite parties admit that the District Agriculture Officer, Barabanki vide letter dated 06.06.2025 in fact has recommended continuance and retention of petitioner at the Block Dundi on the ground of increased productivity.

12. So far as the averment made in the counter affidavit is concerned that petitioner has been transferred in terms of Government Order, it is evident that there is no such ground taken in the impugned order of transfer.

13. In view of discussion made here-in-above, it is evident that the premise for petitioner's transfer is baseless.

14. In view of aforesaid, impugned transfer order dated 15.06.2025 so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh with regard to other two persons who are affected by impugned order.

15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 21, 2025 Subodh/-

(Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench