JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.07.2020 passed by State Radio Officer (Administration), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Mahanagar, Lucknow, as well as the relieving orders dated 14.07.2020 and 15.07.2020 passed by Radio Inspector, Gyanvapi, Varanasi. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by Additional Director General of Police (Telecom), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working on the post of Head Operator (Mechanic) in U.P. Police Radio Department and was posted in District Mau from July, 2001 to July, 2019. The petitioner made a request for his transfer to Varanasi because his mother was being treated at Varanasi. The petitioner was transferred from District Mau to District Varanasi on 8.7.2019 by the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Mahanagar, Lucknow. It has been argued that while the petitioner was working in Mau, he had made a complaint against his higher officials alleging personal animosity with the petitioner. When the petitioner had made application for transfer from District Mau to District Varanasi, an adverse report was made on such application by the Additional State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi on 30.05.2019, a perusal of which would go to show that the Additional State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi was inimical to the petitioner and did not want his transfer to Varanasi. Now the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi on the recommendation of Additional State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi had recommended the transfer of the petitioner to a different district. His recommendation dated 24.05.2020 was relied upon and without any opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner and without seeking approval of the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), the petitioner was transferred from Varanasi to Fatehpur on 13.07.2020. The petitioner went on leave. Suddenly relieving order was issued on 14.07.2020 by the State Radio Officer (Administration), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Mahanagar, Lucknow and he was relieved in absentia and the order was pasted at his residence on 15.07.2020. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed writ petition before this Court namely Writ-A No. 6619 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). 4. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed writ petition before this Court namely Writ-A No. 6619 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). 4. This Court noted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order was passed with malicious intent and that it was passed by an incompetent authority and also noted the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel that under the Uttar Pradesh Police Radio Sub-ordinate Officers' Service Rules, 2015, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the State Radio Officer and the Appointing Authority can also transfer the petitioner. Moreover, such transfer order had been issued after recommendation dated 13.07.2020 of the U.P. Police Radio Establishment Board of which Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) and Inspector General of Police (Telecom) are members and an employee of the Police Radio Department can be transferred from one Zone to another Zone only by the U.P. Police Radio Establishment Board. This Court was not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the parties but observed that the petitioner had already approached the authority concerned by moving a representation and the matter be looked into and decided by the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police within a period of two weeks from the date of passing of the order dated 28.09.2020 and that for a period of two weeks, since the petitioner was already on medical leave, no action be taken against him for not joining at his transferred place of posting and the final decision of the Authority be awaited. 5. It has been argued that in pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner again made a representation along with a copy of the order of this Court to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) and now the impugned order has been passed by the respondent reiterating their earlier stand and affirming the transfer order dated 13.07.2020, without considering any of the grounds mentioned by the petitioner in his representation. 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is punitive in nature and has referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1399 . 6. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer order is punitive in nature and has referred to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2009 SC 1399 . An ex parte enquiry had been conducted by the Superintendent of Police Varanasi and the Assistant State Radio Officer against the petitioner and it was made the basis of the order of transfer dated 13.07.2020. It amounted to punishing the petitioner without giving opportunity of hearing to him. 7. It has also been argued that the three grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation against the transfer order dated 13.07.2020 have been mentioned in the impugned order but none of the grounds taken by him have been considered or discussed and no finding has been recorded by the respondents. 8. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that power of transfer of the government employees of the Police Department/Police Radio Department is vested with the Inspector General of Police (Telecom) / Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) and even recommendation for transfer had to be made by such officers as per the Standing Order No. 32/1-2001 dated 27.10.2001. In paragraph 5 of the said Standing Order, the control / administration of working staff in the concerned district of the Radio Wing would be vested with the concerned State Radio Officer. It has been argued that the disciplinary proceedings initiated on a complaint made by the Additional State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi against the petitioner are still continuing and during the continuance of such proceeding, the transfer order could not have been passed. 9. The learned Standing Counsel, Shri Sharad Upadhyay on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents has argued that the petitioner was posted at Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi conducted an enquiry against the petitioner where it was found that the petitioner is habitual of making representations against his higher officers of the department on misconceived and incorrect grounds. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi conducted an enquiry against the petitioner where it was found that the petitioner is habitual of making representations against his higher officers of the department on misconceived and incorrect grounds. As the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of disciplined force, and had the tendency to have a deleterious effect on other employees posted at a very sensitive place i.e. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi, recommendation had been made for his transfer outside District Varanasi by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi on 24.05.2020. 10. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that by a Government Order dated 25.05.2015, an Establishment Board has been constituted for transfer of non-gazetted employees of the Police Radio Department wherein the Director General of Police/Additional Director General of Police (Telecom.) is the Chairman and the Inspector General of Police/Director (Telecom) is a Member and the State Radio Officer (Admn.) is a Member. A copy of the Government Order has also been filed as Annexure C.A.1 to the counter affidavit. On the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi, the Police Radio Establishment Board held a meeting on 13.07.2020 which was attended by the Additional Director General of Police (Telecom.) and the State Radio Officer (Admin.). The matter of transfer of the petitioner along with 14 other Police Radio Employees was considered and consequently recommendations were made. A copy of the minutes of meeting dated 13.07.2020 have been filed as Annexure-C.A.3 to the counter affidavit. In pursuance to the said meeting, a direction was issued by the Radio Establishment Board to the State Radio Officer (Admin.) U.P. Police Radio Headquarters, Mahanagar, Lucknow to issue the transfer order. Consequently, the State Radio Officer (Admin.) had issued transfer order of the petitioner on 13.07.2020 and the decision of the Police Radio Establishment Board was communicated to the petitioner. It has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that as per the Service Rules of 2015, the Appointing Authority of the petitioner is the State Radio Officer. 11. The petitioner however went on leave without any prior approval of the Competent Authority and consequently the relieving order was passed in absentia on 14.07.2020. Information was given to the petitioner and others concerned on 15.07.2020 by the Radio Inspector, Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi. 12. 11. The petitioner however went on leave without any prior approval of the Competent Authority and consequently the relieving order was passed in absentia on 14.07.2020. Information was given to the petitioner and others concerned on 15.07.2020 by the Radio Inspector, Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi. 12. On the disposal of the petitioner’s Writ Petition Number 6619 of 2020, the representation of the petitioner dated 30.09.2020 was received which representation was considered and disposed of by the Additional Director General of Police (Telecom), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow by his order dated 7.10.2020, after fresh consideration of the same was made in a meeting of the Police Radio Establishment Board attended by the Additional Director General of Police (Telecom.) and the State Radio Officer (Admin.) at the Headquarters, Lucknow. In pursuance of the transfer order dated 7.10.2020, the petitioner has joined his transferred place of posting at district Fatehpur on 10.10.2020. In paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, the report of the Additional Radio Officer, Varanasi dated 30.05.2019 and also the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi for the petitioner to be transferred outside Varanasi. It has been submitted that the petitioner was found habitual of making representations/complaints against the higher officers of the department on misconceived and incorrect grounds. As the conduct of the petitioner was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force and had the tendency to have a bad effect on other employees posted at a very sensitive place at Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi. Such recommendation was duly considered by the Police Radio Establishment Board which has taken a decision for transfer of the petitioner on its own, although it has also considered the recommendation made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. A copy of recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi dated 24.05.2020 has been filed as Annexure-C.A.1 to the counter affidavit. 13. The counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was transferred on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. Only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) is competent to make any recommendation and only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) can transfer the petitioner. 13. The counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner was transferred on the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi. Only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) is competent to make any recommendation and only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) can transfer the petitioner. It has also been submitted on the basis of the Government Order dated 1.7.2020 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. that Zero Transfer Session has been declared in pursuance of Covid-19 pandemic by the State Government for State Government Employees but such Government Order dated 12.05.2020 was not applicable to police employees and the recommendation of the various Police Establishment Boards constituted under the Government Order No. 408/6-POO-10-2018-27(45)/2008 dated 09.05.2018 were exempted from the operation of the Government Order dated 12.05.2020 issued by the Karmik Anubhag-4. It has been submitted that U.P. Police Radio Establishment Board had not been mentioned in the Government Order dated 1.7.2020 issued by the Grah (Police) Anubhag-1, therefore it shall be deemed that the Police Radio Establishment Board could not have transferred the petitioner during the subsistence of the Government Order dated 12.05.2020 issued by the Karmik Anubhag-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has also pointed out Annexure-5 to the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner is being harassed repeatedly by his superior officers and that if the petitioner is indeed guilty or has committed any mistake, the respondents should have started disciplinary proceedings against him but no disciplinary proceeding have been initiated against him and he has been transferred on the basis of an ex parte report. 14. This Court has perused the Annexure-5 of the writ petition which is a report dated 30.05.2019 sent by the State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Mahanagar, Lucknow. It refers to the petitioner’s complaint dated 26.04.2019 which was forwarded to the Radio Inspector, Mau on 15.05.2019 and detailed comments were asked for from the Assistant Radio Officer, Azamgarh. The Assistant Radio Officer, Azamgarh sent his comments on 27.05.2019 where reference was made to several complaints made by the petitioner against various officers who were superior to him. It refers to the petitioner’s complaint dated 26.04.2019 which was forwarded to the Radio Inspector, Mau on 15.05.2019 and detailed comments were asked for from the Assistant Radio Officer, Azamgarh. The Assistant Radio Officer, Azamgarh sent his comments on 27.05.2019 where reference was made to several complaints made by the petitioner against various officers who were superior to him. It was stated in the said comments that the petitioner was in the habit of making frivolous complaints and making unnecessary correspondence just to hamper smooth functioning of the Police Radio Office at Azamgarh. Not only was the smooth functioning of the Radio Office at Azamgarh being affected but it had the tendency to generated indiscipline amongst fellow officers, therefore, a request was made for his transfer outside Mau. The Additional State Radio Officer, Varanasi Zone, Varanasi thereafter had carefully perused the record of the petitioner and had found that when the petitioner was posted on election duty in Shrawasti he had made a representation that he was not fit to perform strenuous duty and he be assigned duty somewhere else. Not only was such representation made to the Radio Inspector but also to the Additional State Radio Officer, Azamgarh Zone, Azamgarh. A report was called for from the concerned officer and it come out that the petitioner was habitual of making unnecessary correspondence against his higher officer and when directed to perform duty he tendered unwillingness on the ground of his health and on the ground that he had filed a case in Court which required him to be present for its proper persecution and that he was afraid for safety of his life from various political persons. It was also found on enquiry into another complaint made by the petitioner that when the petitioner was not assigned VVIP duty but had been nominated to do maintenance work for Radio Sets established in rural areas, to avoid doing duty in rural areas he had made such complaints. It was reported that the petitioner was making unnecessary correspondence only to avoid performing duties that were assigned to him. In all such representations of the petitioner, the petitioner had given excuses that he was afraid of his life from political persons and therefore, he did not wish to leave Headquarters. The petitioner did not perform any election duty as was assigned to him and went on unauthorized leave. In all such representations of the petitioner, the petitioner had given excuses that he was afraid of his life from political persons and therefore, he did not wish to leave Headquarters. The petitioner did not perform any election duty as was assigned to him and went on unauthorized leave. Later on a compromise was arrived at between the Assistant Radio Officer, Mau and the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner by his letter dated 23.3.2019 addressed to Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom), U.P. Police Radio Headquarter, Mahanagar, Lucknow stated that all misunderstanding had been resolved and the same had been due to communication gap and that he had made several complaints earlier and he did not wish to pursue the matter further and that no action be taken on his complaints. Again comments were called for by the Police Radio Headquarter and the 43 pages of complaints/representation that were made by the petitioner were sent to the U.P. Police Radio Headquarter by letter dated 6.4.2019. Reference was also made in the report dated 30.05.2019 of an earlier occasion when the petitioner was deputed to work at Flood Control Room at Turtipur Shrinagar Bandh Chandpur, the petitioner had avoided duty and started making unnecessary allegations and complaints against the then Assistant Radio Officer, Azamgarh, regular disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and on the basis of Inquiry Report dated 04.02.2017, the petitioner was awarded Censure Entry on 8.8.2017 by the State Radio Officer (Admin.) as he was on unauthorized leave and his absence was regularized as 30 days leave without pay. 15. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is evident from the perusal of Annexure-5 to the writ petition, as also Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents that the petitioner is being harassed repeatedly by the Superior Officers and the order of transfer has been passed with malicious intention. 16. This Court had carefully perused the earlier order passed by this Court on 28.9.2020 wherein although the petitioner had raised similar arguments, this Court had not found it appropriate to address the same or to quash the transfer order dated 13.7.2020. The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits of the controversy by referring the matter to the Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ petition was disposed of without entering into the merits of the controversy by referring the matter to the Competent Authority to decide the representation of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. Now a reasoned and speaking order has been passed by the respondents which has been challenged in this writ petition. 17. This Court has perused the impugned order dated 07.10.2020 and finds that it refers to the recommendations made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi dated 24.05.2020 regarding an enquiry conducted by him on a complaint made by the petitioner regarding entry given to him. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi had found no substance in the complaint made by the petitioner dated 27.03.2020 on conducting a fact finding enquiry on the same and he had also referred to several such complaints being made earlier by the petitioner, and that he was apprehensive of the fact that such conduct of the petitioner would have a deleterious effect on other employees as he was posted at a very sensitive place at Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi. A request was therefore made that the petitioner be transferred to some other place outside Varanasi. 18. The Police Radio Establishment Board which is the Competent Authority to consider all recommendations for transfer made by Superintendent of Police/Senior Superintendent of Police and other District Level Officers considered the recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi and eventually passed transfer order dated 13.07.2020. The petitioner went on leave without prior sanction and such order was served upon him at his current place of residence of Varanasi and he was relieved in absentia. After this Court passed an order on 28.09.2020, the Police Radio Establishment Board again held a meting on 07.10.2020 chaired by Additional Director General of Police (Telecom), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which was attended by the State Radio Officer (Administration). The allegation of the petitioner to the effect that the order was passed maliciously was considered and it was found to have no substance although reference was made duly to the recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi dated 24.05.2020. Reference was also made to the petitioner’s allegation that the impugned transfer order has been passed by an incompetent authority i.e. State Radio Officer (Administration). Reference was also made to the petitioner’s allegation that the impugned transfer order has been passed by an incompetent authority i.e. State Radio Officer (Administration). It was found that as per the relevant Government Order, the recommendation of transfer was made by the Police Radio Establishment Board which had considered the recommendation of transfer for the petitioner and recommendations with regard to four other employees of the Police Radio Establishment. The order was only communicated by the State Radio Officer. After this Court’s order dated 28.09.2020, the petitioner’s representation was again considered by the same Police Radio Establishment Board and they did not find any merit in the grounds taken by the petitioner regarding recommendation of the Senior Superintendent of Police Varanasi in violation of relevant Government Order. 19. This Court having carefully perused the order dated 07.10.2020 which has been communicated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Telecom) does not find any good ground to show interference as it is well considered detailed order, referring to the power of the Police Radio Establishment Board to consider recommendations of transfers made by District Level Officers and to pass orders in turn for transfer of subordinate officers of the Police Radio Establishment. 20. The counsel for the petitioner has referred to judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (surpa). This Court has carefully perused the order passed by the Supreme Court. The question that was being considered by the Supreme Court has been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the said judgment which is being quoted hereinbelow : “A short but an interesting question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the High Court while quashing an order of transfer passed against the appellant was correct in directing that he would not be entitled to salary for the period commencing 15 days after the modified order of transfer to Ahmedabad was passed till the date he again joined his duties at the original place.” 21. The Supreme Court was considering the case of an officer of the Indian Revenue Services who was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise at Bhopal. The Supreme Court was considering the case of an officer of the Indian Revenue Services who was posted as a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise at Bhopal. The employees posted at the Bhopal office of the respondents apprehending disciplinary as also criminal proceedings at the hands of the appellant, on the basis of reassessment of the files undertaken by him, had sent an anonymous complaint alleging caste-bias on his part; pursuant whereto an order of transfer was passed against him on 22.08.2005. The appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that since he had taken action against some erring officers, they were instrumental in sending the said anonymous complaint and no action should have been taken on such a complaint in the light of the circulars/letters issued by the Central Vigilance Commission. However, an enquiry was got conducted by an Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance, and the allegation made against the appellant were not found to be true. Still recommendations were made that he be transferred outside Bhopal, consequently, he was transferred to Shillong. The appellant had made a representation for his retention on humanitarian grounds which was not considered. He therefore filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur where the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the appellant by a reasoned and speaking order and till such decision is taken, the appellant be not disturbed. The representation of the appellant was rejected. He filed another representation which was again rejected. The appellant then filed another Original Application before the Tribunal at Jabalpur and during the pendency of the said Original Application, the respondents promoted him and posted him to Ahmedabad. The appellant amended his Original Application suitably which was disposed of by the Tribunal by observing that the transfer order was on administrative exigencies and the appellant was an All India Service Officer liable to be transferred throughout India and that Tribunal cannot substitute its own decision in the matter of transfer and that his transfer order being passed by the Competent Authority was after consideration of administrative needs and requirements of the station concerned. The appellant had approached the High Court against such order of the CAT while also challenging his transfer. The appellant had approached the High Court against such order of the CAT while also challenging his transfer. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur noted that during the pendency of the writ petition, disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against the appellant on the ground that he had not joined at the place of posting at Ahmedabad. The Court therefore directed that during the pendency of the writ petition, disciplinary proceeding should not be conducted and then finally disposed of the writ petition of the appellant quashing the transfer order and he was directed to join at Bhopal but he was not held entitled to be paid his salary for the period he had not worked. The Supreme Court observed after recording in detail the observations in the judgment rendered by the High Court, that while quashing the transfer order, no such observation could have been made as was done by the High Court. It also referred to the transfer order being an administrative order but nevertheless having been passed on the ground of complaint against the appellant alleging caste bias which anonymous complaint was not found to be true on enquiry being conducted in the matter. Having regard to the directives of the Central Vigilance Commission, it held that no enquiry could have been initiated against him but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that in the said enquiry, the allegations were found to be untrue. The Court also observed that respondents knew that the matter was pending before the Tribunal but they did not approach the Tribunal to obtain leave before passing the second order of transfer of the appellant from Shillong to Ahmedabad. They passed the order of transfer while considering the cases for promotion and transfer of a large number of officers and the order of transfer suffered from a total non application of mind in so far as it proceeded on the premise that the appellant had already joined his post at Shillong. 22. Certain observations were no doubt made by the Supreme Court on the principles of malice in law and malice in fact and it had observed that transfer order was based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. 22. Certain observations were no doubt made by the Supreme Court on the principles of malice in law and malice in fact and it had observed that transfer order was based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. The Supreme Court had also observed that employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but an order of transfer cannot be passed by way of, or in lieu of punishment and that when an order of transfer is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set aside being wholly illegal. 23. Having considered the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Somesh Tiwari (surpa), this Court finds that the order of transfer dated 13.07.2020 was not passed in lieu of or by way of any punishment. In Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India; 2006 (8) SCC 1, measure to insulate police machinery from political/executive interference and to make it more effective and efficient to strengthen the rule of law in the country were considered. The Supreme Court had observed that there should be a Police Establishment in each State which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Court in its Full Bench decision in Constable Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others; (2010) 7 ADJ 315 had approved the validity of different Police Establishment Board set up by the Government for different branches of the Police Force and for different cadres and it being headed by Inspector Generals of Police instead of by the Director General of Police for non-gazetted officers. The Police Radio Establishment Board is the Competent Authority to consider recommendations of the District Officers and then to pass appropriate orders. Several complaints had been made by the petitioner which ran into 43 pages and such 43 pages had been duly forwarded by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi to the Police Radio Establishment Board for its consideration, the Police Radio Establishment Board had of its own come to the conclusion that indeed it was not conducive to the discipline of unit incharge of safety and security of a highly sensitive place i.e. Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple/Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi for such a person as the petitioner to continue to be posted there. Such an order cannot be faulted with. 15. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.