Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9557 of 2019 Petitioner :- Yashveer Singh And 16 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Other Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushmita Mukherjee, Abhijeet Mukherji Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.
Order on Civil Misc. Amendment Application No. -- of 2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Amendment application is allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners to carry out necessary amendments during the course of the day.
Order on writ petition
Supplementary affidavit has been filed today, which is taken on record.
Heard Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for all the respondents.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the respondent no.2-Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, District Moradabad by way of the Office of Inspector General of Police, Range Moradabad letter No. Kaam-AC-Teen-(Samayawadhi Aa. Cha.) 2019/2521 (Annexure No.2 to this writ petition).
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioners to work as Constable Driver in the Police Lines, District Moradabad."
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially the petitioners were appointed in P.A.C. Cadre and were posted in various parts of the State. Thereafter, the petitioners were posted in District Moradabad as constable driver. It is further contended that vide order dated 05.03.2019 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, District Moradabad, the petitioners have been transferred from Moradabad to various districts whereas as per transfer policy of the Police Department dated 31.12.2018 as well as G.O. dated 24.07.2015, the petitioners should not have been transferred before completion of 10 years of service, hence, the impugned order dated 05.3.2019 is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed.
It is not in dispute that the petitioners hold a transferable post. It is a settled law that transfer is an exigency of service. Ordinarily the Court should not interfere in the matter of transfer except on the limited grounds i.e. violation of statutory rules and malafide. Violation of transfer policy or executive order does not confer any vested right on the employee to challenge the transfer order in the Court. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357; Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1991 Supp 2 SCC 659; and, N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 98.
From a perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition and from the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no ground exists in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any violation of statutory provision or service rules.
In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the transfer order in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the competent authority by filing a representation, which shall be considered and decided on merits by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order alongwith copy of the writ petition.
It is made clear that the representation of the petitioners shall be considered after the petitioners report at the transferred place.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. No costs.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019 Ajeet