Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of U.P. and others 1011
Thus, in effect the guidelines issued by
the Supreme Court with regard to the
creation of the Police Establishment
Board have been followed and
implemented by the State Government in
pith and substance according to the true
spirit. Any technical infraction in the
implementation of the said guidelines
cannot be a subject of consideration by
this Court.
Case law discussed:
(2006) 8 SCC 1, Writ Petition No.1525 of 2009
decided on 4.9.2009, 2003(1) UPLBEC 636.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)
1. Petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector
(Special Category) in U.P. Police has
challenged the order dated 16.9.2009
passed by the Deputy Inspector General
(Establishment), U.P. Police
Headquarters, Allahabad transferring him
from district Gautam Budh Nagar to Mau
in public interest with the approval of
Police Establishment Board.
2. On behalf of the petitioner a
supplementary affidavit and then a second
supplementary affidavit has been filed.
Learned Standing Counsel was earlier
allowed time to obtain instructions and to
file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit
as well as a supplementary counter
affidavit has been filed by the learned
Standing Counsel on behalf of
respondents no.1 to 5 and respondent no.7
to which even rejoinder affidavit has been
filed. The counsel for the parties as such
agree for final disposal of the writ petition
at the admission stage itself. Accordingly,
having heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel for the respondentsat
length, I proceed to decide the matter
finally.
3. Before addressing various points
which have been canvassed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in order to assail
the impugned order, it is tiride to mention
that under the service jurisprudence
transfer of an employee who holds a
transferable post is a normal feature and
has been recognised throughout as an
incident of service. In the matter of the
transfer, the Government/employer has a
wide discretion and it is the employer
who is the best judge to utilise the service
of its employee and to place and post him
at its discretion accordingly. The
employee has no legal say in the matter of
his posting except to bring to the notice of
the authority concerned his personal
difficulty or any hardship. The employee
as such, as no vested right either to insist
for a particular post or to be posted at a
particular place or to stick to a particular
one. In fact, transfer has been considered
necessary in public interest and to
maintain efficiency in public
administration. Therefore, it has been
settled by a catena of authorities that
ordinarily transfer orders are not to be
interfered with on the judicial side until
and unless it is shown that the order of
transfer passed is without jurisdiction; is
in breach of any statutory rule or it has
been motivated by malice of fact or law or
is proved to be punitive, vindictive or
stigmatic in nature.
4. It is in the above settled legal
background that I have to examine the
validity of the impugned order.
5. The first submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the Police Establishment Board
(hereinafter referred to as "the Board")
which had granted approval to the transfer
is not properly constituted as per the