By means of present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the transfer order dated 22.04.2010, passed by the Police Establishment Board contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that orders of transfer are being passed in an arbitrary manner without adhering the policies made by the Government from time to time, that too without application of mind by a common order transferring various police personals from one place to another.
Further submission is that the police personals are being transferred in view of Government Order dated 11.07.1986. The said Government Order dated 11.07.1986 has been amended on 20.9.1987 and again it was modified on 25.03.1995. From 1995 to 2009 various orders of transfers were being passed on the basis of modified Government Order 25.03.1995, though in the year 2009 a dispute was raised that the Government Order dated 25.03.1995 has not been issued by the competent authority, and, therefore, that cannot be taken into consideration.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 19.02.2010 is discriminatory in view of the fact that it discriminates the employees of the police department stating therein that the police personals who are under the securities of V.I.Ps like Ministers and other persons, policy of transfer will not be applicable to them and they cannot be transferred in view of the government policy either of 1996 or subsequent policies, issued by the government.
This Court while considering similar controversy, pleased to pass the following order on 07.5.2010 in Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010, Jagannath Prasad Gaur & others vs. State of U.P. & others: In such circumstances, as there is no subjective satisfaction by the Board in view of the directions issued by the apex court as well as the Board has to take the decision first, therefore, in may opinion, in spite of the fact that this is a case of transfer of the government employee this Court interfere, if the action of the State appears to be arbitrary and without application of mind.
In view of aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the petitioners are entitled for interim relief. Till the next date of listing, the order of transfer against the petitioners shall remain stayed.
In such circumstances, as the controversy is such which has to be adjudicated upon exchange of the counter and rejoinder affidavits, therefore, in my opinion, it will be appropriate that an opportunity be given to the parties to exchange the affidavits for the purposes of adjudication of the matter on merits. The respondents are granted two weeks' time to file a counter affidavit. Petitioners will have two weeks, thereafter, to file a rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of aforesaid period.
I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition as well as the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010, Jagannath Prasad Gaur & others vs. State of U.P. & others.
Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner's case is identical to that of petitioners of Writ Petition No. 25016 of 2010.
Since present petitioners are identically placed and, therefore, proprietary demands that their interest should also be protected in the similar manner. Apart from this, the impugned transfer order dated 22.04.2010 appears to be a result of non application of mind. The transfer order dated 22.04.2010, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is hereby stayed till the next date of listing.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within three weeks' Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within one week. List in the month of July, 2010 Order Date :- 10.5.2010 Shahnaz