Apr - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1 All Pankaj Kumar and others V. State of U.P. 447
Raibareli and the petitioner no. 6 has been
transferred from Lucknow to Lakhimpur
Kheri, on the ground that they are posted in
the adjoining district to the home district
which is not permissible as per the
Government Order dated 11.7.1986.
Challenge has also been made to the
Government Order dated 11.7.1986.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that after coming into force the
U.P. (Civil Police) Constables and Head
Constables Service Rules 2008 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Rules 2008') notified by the
notification dated 2.12.2008, the
Government Order dated 11.7.1986 has
been superseded. Moreover, in view of
Rule 26 of the Rules 2008, the matters not
specifically covered by these rules shall be
governed by the rules, regulations and the
Orders applicable generally to Government
servants serving in connection with affairs
of the State.
3. Contention is that Rule 2008 does
not prohibit the posting of police personnel
in the home district or the adjoining district
to the home district and, therefore, there
can not be any embargo on the posting of
the police personnel in the home district or
districts adjoining to the home districts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submits that, in fact, Regulation
520 of the Police Regulation provides that
the transfers which result in officers being
stationed far from their homes should be
avoided as much as possible, meaning
thereby that the police personnel shall be
posted near to the home districts.
Since Regulation 520 of the Police
Regulations provided that transfers which
result in officers being stationed far from
their homes as far as possible should be
avoided, therefore, the Government Order
dated 11.7.1986 which is contrary to the
Police Regulations is wrong and can not be
allowed to deal with the transfers of the
police personnel.
Moreover, the opposite parties on the
one hand vide circular dated 21.3.2011 has
exempted all those police personnel posted
in the V.I.P. duties from the general
transfers and on the other hand have made
large scale transfers on the basis of the
Government Order dated 11.7.1986 which
amounts to discrimination.
5. It is further contended by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P. &
others (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2060, while
considering the constitution of the Police
Establishment Board vide notification
dated 12.3.2008 has observed that Rule 26
of Rules 2008, makes applicable the rules
pertaining to the Government servants i.e.
the persons appointed to public services
and posts in connection with the affairs of
the State and as Regulation 520 deals with
the transfers of police personnel, who are
also a part of the public services of the
State, therefore, insofar as the police
personnel are concerned, the regulation
pertaining to the transfers would continue
to apply to them. In this regard he has
relied on para 20 of the judgment in the
case of Vinod Kumar (Supra).
"20. In our opinion, therefore,
considering the fact that the Rule 26 of the
Rules, 2008 makes applicable the rules
pertaining to the Government servants, i.e.
persons appointed to public services and
posts in connection with the affairs of the
State, and as Regulation 520 deals with the
transfers of the police personnel, who are