Allahabad High Court
SMT. GEETA CHAURASIYAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court disposed the petition without examining merits, directing the respondent to consider the representation within twelve weeks.
Summary
Petitioner Geeta Chaurasiya filed a writ petition seeking a certiorari to quash a transfer order dated 11‑09‑2026 and a mandamus directing the respondent not to disturb her service and to pay her salary. The petitioner contended that she had already filed a representation on 12‑09‑2026 before the respondent, which was pending consideration. The standing counsel argued that the petition had no useful purpose and the grievance should be decided by the respondent in accordance with law. The court directed the respondent to consider the representation within twelve weeks after giving a hearing to all parties, emphasizing that it had not examined the merits of the case. Consequently, the petition was disposed without any substantive order on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking quash of a transfer order and mandamus is maintainable when the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent.
- Whether the court should direct the respondent to consider the pending representation expeditiously.
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- transfer order
- service
- representation
- expeditious hearing
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16007 of 2026
Smt. Geeta Chaurasiya
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suneel Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned
transfer order dated 11-09-2026 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 to
this writ petition).
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 2 to not disturb the service of the petitioner and take work and pay
salary to her."
2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has
already represented on 12.09.2026 before respondent No. 3, which is
pending consideration.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that as petitioner has already
represented, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending and it would be appropriate that respondent be directed to
consider the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. In view of these facts, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider and
decide the representation dated 12.09.2026 of the petitioner in accordance
with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned
parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of twelve weeks from
the date of production of certified copy of this order.
5. It is made clear that this court has not examined the matter on merits
WRIA No. 16007 of 2026
2
and the order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
September 30, 2026
Nitika Sri.
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…