JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. In these proceedings, which have been filed in the public interest, the petitioner has sought a mandamus for the replacement of the sixth respondent as Chairman of a selection committee for the selection of Village Development Officers. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit. 2. The State Government by an order dated 23 May 2012 communicated its sanction to the second respondent for filling up vacant posts of Group-C and Group-D in the Rural Development Department in naxalite affected districts. The District Development Officer, Mirzapur, as appointing authority, published an advertisement on 15 June 2013. During the course of the selection process, the District Magistrate is stated to have informed the State Government of several complaints in regard to the process on 27 September and 12 November 2013. The counter affidavit states that the State Government on 12 November 2013 as well as the second respondent postponed the selection proceedings for the posts of Village Development Officer. Subsequently on 29 November 2013, selection proceedings for three posts of Urdu Translator-cum-Junior Clerk were cancelled. The sixth respondent was posted as District Development Officer on 18 May 2012. 3. In view of the policy of the State Government, an officer in Group-I cannot be posted in a division of his home town. The sixth respondent is a permanent resident of district Bhadohi (Sant Ravidas Nagar). When this fact was noticed, an order of transfer was issued on 8 October 2012 transferring the sixth respondent from district Mirzapur to district Kaushambi. On 29 October 2012, the order of transfer was stayed in a writ petition filed by the sixth respondent in this Court being Writ-A No. 55165 of 20121. In the meantime, it has been stated that in view of irregularities which were noticed on the part of the sixth respondent, the State Government initiated a departmental enquiry on 19 November 2013 and a charge sheet was served. The Additional Commissioner (Administration), Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 2 January 2014 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development of the State Government. It has also been stated in the counter that the sixth respondent has been found guilty of violating Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1956. 4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 2 January 2014 to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development of the State Government. It has also been stated in the counter that the sixth respondent has been found guilty of violating Rule 29 of the U.P. Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1956. 4. It is in this peculiar background that the writ petition in the public interest was filed seeking the replacement of the sixth respondent as Chairman of the selection committee for selection of Village Development Officers. 5. The petition filed by the sixth respondent challenging his transfer has been taken up separately by the Court today in pursuance of a direction that was issued on 19 September 2014. The writ petition challenging the order of transfer (Writ-A No. 55165 of 2012) has been dismissed on the ground that transfer is an exigency of service. This being the position, the restraint on the State from transferring the sixth respondent to a new place of posting stands lifted. 6. The sixth respondent, as noted earlier, has already been transferred by the State Government to district Kaushambi by an order of transfer dated 8 October 2012. It is needless to add that it is open to the State Government to issue appropriate directions in regard to the place of posting of the sixth respondent since that lies in the administrative discretion of the competent authority. 7. In the circumstances, the basis of the petition has been worked out since the continuance of the sixth respondent at his earlier place of posting at Mirzapur under the interim order which was passed in the companion petition on 29 October 2012 has been lifted. We now direct the State Government to act accordingly and within a period of one week of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.