The court upheld the transfer order and rejection of representation based on the interpretation of the correction order and government guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Aditya Dwivedi, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging transfer order dated 28.06.2023, amendment order dated 25.07.2023, relieving order dated 27.07.2023 and the order dated 20/21.09.2023 rejecting petitioner's representation.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner was transferred from District Lucknow to Shrawasti in Public Interest vide order dated 28.06.2023 which was subsequently amended on 25.07.2023. The said orders were challenged in Writ A No.5694 of 2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 07.08.223 directing opposite parties to consider grievance of petitioner pertaining couple posting in terms of Government Order dated 07.06.2023 and ill health of his wife as well as the fact that his children are studying in Lucknow. It is submitted that by means of impugned order dated 21.09.2023, petitioner's representation has been rejected without taking into consideration the aspect of couple posting as well as mid term transfer and ill health of petitioner's wife.

4. It has also been submitted that in terms of order dated 28.07.2023, any order or amendment to transfer order issue after the expiry of transfer session is required to be approved by the appropriate authority, which has not been done in the present case due to which impugned orders are required to be quashed.

5. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 clearly indicates the reasons for rejection of petitioner's representation in which all the aforesaid aspects have been taken into account particularly the aspect that petitioner has already spent 11 years in being posted in Lucknow District.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that petitioner was earlier transferred by means of order dated 28.06.2023. Vide subsequent order dated 25.07.2023 the aforesaid order has been amended only to the extent that post of petitioner was incorrectly indicated in the transfer order as RAC whereas petitioner was actually working on the post of welder and the transfer order was amended only to the aforesaid extent.

7. It is quite evident that vide order dated 25.07.2023 the place of posting of petitioner has not been changed and only the post on which he has been working, which was wrongly indicated in the transfer order has been corrected. In effect the order dated 25.07.2023 is a correction order and not an amendment order and therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, would relate back to the order of transfer dated 28.06.2023 due to which the Government Order dated 28.07.2023 would be inapplicable.

8. So far as remaining submissions of petitioner are concerned, it is quite evident from a perusal of impugned order that petitioner has been consistently posting in District Lucknow for the past 11 year probably on account of his wife illness who is working in the PWD Department of the State Government.

9. Paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 07.06.2023 does not entail an embargo on posting of persons outside the realm of couple postings. The aforesaid Government Order is in the nature of a guideline and cogent reasons have been indicated in the impugned order for deviation from the same.

10. In view of aforesaid, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

11. Petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.