JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. The petitioner has challenged the order transferring him outside the District, Lucknow. The petitioner has also challenged the order of relieving passed in pursuance of the transfer orders, which have been passed in the year 2013, 2014 or 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this court dated 6th July, 2016 passed in writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016, Anil Kumar Mishra versus State of U.P. 3. The facts of the case of the petitioner in this writ petition are same as those of writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016. 4. Sri Mohd. Mansoor, learned Chief Standing counsel has submitted that there are various aspects of the matter, which have not been taken into consideration by Hon'ble Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 6th July, 2016 in writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016. He has also stated that relieving of the petitioner could not be done within the reasonable time from the date of passing of the transfer order on account of various exigencies such as requirement of police force for law and order duties and also for duties to be performed by him during elections to the local bodies. 5. Learned Chief Standing counsel has further stated that Hon'ble Single Judge while passing the order dated 6.7.2016 in the case of Anil Kumar Mishra (supra) has not adjudicated upon the policy decision taken by the government for transferring an employee, who can be transferred in exigencies of administration and also in public interest. 6. All these aspects were open for the State to plead before Hon'ble Single Judge in writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016. I am not inclined to take a view other than the view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge in his order dated 6.7.2016 passed in writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016. 7. Accordingly, the benefit of the judgment and order dated 6.7.2016 passed by this court in writ petition no. 15148(S/S) of 2016 shall also be made available to the petitioner. Consequently, the transfer orders as well as consequential relieving orders passed in respect of petitioner stand quashed. It will be open for the authorities to transfer the petitioner, if exigency of service so requires, in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the petition is finally disposed of.