JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.03.2020 as well as the impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2019 passed by the opposite party No.2 in respect of the petitioner. The petitioner is working on the post of Assistant Clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri and has been transferred from Lakhimpur Kheri to Pilibhit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has preferred a writ petition being writ petition No. 36805 (SS) of 2019 challenging the aforesaid order and by means of order dated 03.01.2020 this Court was pleased to disposed of the writ petition by passing following order:- "Considering the innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, the opposite party No.2, i.e. Director (Administration) Directorate of Director General, Medical & Health Services, U.P. Lucknow is directed to decide the representation dated 1st July, 2019 by reasoned and speaking order within with period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. Final decision by the authority concerned may be taken keeping in view the recommendations made by Chief Medical Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri vide letter dated 1st July, 2019." 4. In pursuance to the direction of this Court, the representation was duly considered and a finding was recorded that petitioner has been posted in the Division since 24.08.1989 and therefore he has been transferred out from the Division and his representation was accordingly rejected. 5. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing a writ petition being writ petition No. 2082 (SS) of 2020 challenging the rejection order dated 15.01.2020 and this Court by means of order dated 28.01.2020 passed the following order:- "The petitioner is given liberty to prefer a fresh representation taking all pleas and grounds available to him enclosing therewith copies of relevant documents, which are necessary for disposal of the representation along with certified copy of the order of this Court for perusal and necessary orders." 6. The grievance in the present writ petition is that by means of the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 the case of the petitioner has been examined by the respondents again and has been rejected. The grievance in the present writ petition is that by means of the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 the case of the petitioner has been examined by the respondents again and has been rejected. By means of the impugned order dated 11.03.2020 it has been categorically stated that petitioner worked from 24.08.1989 to 14.09.2015 in District Lakhimpur Kheri and from 15.09.2015 to 03.07.2017 in District Saharanpur and again since 04.07.2017 till his present transfer was working in District Lakhimpur Kheri and therefore till date he has worked for around 28 years in the said Division, while persons who have worked over 25 years have been transferred out. 7. The petitioner has assailed the rejection order on various grounds including that there is no mention in the transfer order that whether it has been passed in public interest or on the administrative grounds. It has also been submitted that the period of stay in Lakhimpur has been incorrectly recorded as on the aforesaid ground submitted that he should be allowed to continue at Lakhimpur Kheri. 8. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that petitioner is liable to be transferred any where in State of U.P. and it is clear from a perusal of various orders passed in pursuance to the direction issued in this Court that he has served in Lakhimpur Kheri for over 28 years and as a matter of policy person working for more than 25 years have been transfered out of the State and accordingly the petitioner has also been transferred out. 9. He further submits that petitioner does not have any right to stay at Lakhimpur Kheri and there is no violation of any statute or any law in passing of the transfer order and even otherwise on the direction of this Court the authorities have duly considered the case of the petitioner twice already and all aspects have been duly considered and therefore the petition lacks merit and deserves to be rejected. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The law with regard to the transfer has been made abundantly clear from the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the Case of Tushar D Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 11 SCC 678 held as under:- "17. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The law with regard to the transfer has been made abundantly clear from the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the Case of Tushar D Bhatt Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 11 SCC 678 held as under:- "17. In the instant case the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant’s transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the transfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorisedly absent from official duties from 11.10.1999 to 27.04.2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced. 18. In Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani this Court had an occasion to examined the case of almost similar nature. This Court observed as under: "4. ......"Transfer from one place to another is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other." 19. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1724 , the settled legal position has been reiterated. The court held that absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service" 12. In Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and Others, AIR 2003 SC 1724 , the settled legal position has been reiterated. The court held that absence from duty without proper intimation is indicated to be a grave offence warranting removal from service" 12. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey and others (2004) 12 SCC 299 held as under:- "4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by malafide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Ambani Kanta Ray vs. State of Orissa, (Suppl) 4 SCC 169). Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the Court cannot interfere with it. (see Union of India vs. S.L. Abbas 1993 AIR(SC) 2444. Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafide or is made in violation of operative any guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Janardan Debanath & Anr. 2004 (4) SCC 245 it was observed as follows: "No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574 ". 13. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574 ". 13. The petitioner on two earlier occasions had approached this Court, whereby a direction was given to the authorities to consider his representation. The authorities have passed a reasoned and speaking order and rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner having already served in Lakhimpur Kheri for about 28 years, cannot be permitted to continue in the same Division as per the policy of the respondents and the public interest is self evident from the facts of the case as well as the orders passed by the respondents. 14. In the instant case the matter has been thoroughly examined by this Court as well as the respondent authorities. 15. I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or irrationality in the impugned transfer order dated 29.06.2019 as well as the impugned order of rejection of the representation of petitioner dated 11.03.2020. The respondents have duly considered the case of the petitioner and gave adequate reasons for the same. It is also surprising that the petitioner having been transferred in June, 2019 is still continuing at Lakhimpur Kheri without there being any interim order in his favour. 16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the case is called for. 17. The petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are expected to relieve the petitioner immediately so that he can join at transferred place of posting. 18. However, it is provided that in case petitioner joins to his the transferred place of posting within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, then no coercive action shall be taken against him.