Allahabad High Court
Manish Kumar Dixit, Const.159 Cp Pno ... vs The State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. And 6 ... on 12 December, 2014
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No.12 Reserved Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34228 of 2014 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Dixit and 62 Ors. Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru Chief Secy. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Connected with 1. Writ Petition No. 34310 of 2014 Constable 449-Cp, Dinesh Kumar and 54 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2. Writ Petition No. 34325 of 2014 Constable 1636-Cp Sanjay Kumar and 322 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 3. Writ Petition No. 34837 of 2014 Ram Terth Yadav, Constable 139 Cp Pno No.822410445 & 22 others vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 6 others 4. Writ Petition No. 34938 of 2014 Head Constable A.P.No.8 Pno No.842672016 Rizwan Khan vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 5. Writ Petition No. 34939 of 2014 Mahila Const.617cp Pno No.982670707 Shashi Singh Rawat & another vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 4 others 6. Writ Petition No. 35082 of 2014 Constable 831 C.P. Narendra Singh (P.No.912460770) & 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 7. Writ Petition No. 35788 of 2014 Constable 1280 Cp Ashif Khan and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 8. Writ Petition No. 35857 of 2014 Nafish Ahmad Constable Cp Pno.No.062451433 & 42 others vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 8 others 9. Writ Petition No. 36075 of 2014 Moti Lal Yadav and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 10. Writ Petition No. 36151 of 2014 Ram Naresh Patel,Constable 932 Cp Pno No.862830207 & 79 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 11. Writ Petition No. 36157 of 2014 Bharat Singh, Head Constable 58 Cp Pno No.762140394 & 71 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 12. Writ Petition No. 36263 of 2014 Head Constable Raj Bahadur Singh and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 13. Writ Petition No. 36281 of 2014 Dinesh Chandra and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 14. Writ Petition No. 36564 of 2014 Constable 62 Ap Irfan Ali and 24 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 15. Writ Petition No. 36587 of 2014 Constable Cp 841 Naresh Chand Sharma and 24 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 16. Writ Petition No. 36589 of 2014 Jai Kumar,(Head Constable 286 C.P.) and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 17. Writ Petition No. 36788 of 2014 Mukesh Kant, Constable 976 C.P. Pno No.062241872 & 38 others vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 6 others 18. Writ Petition No. 36793 of 2014 Hc.357-Cp-Ramveer Singh Yadav and 8 others vs. The State of U.P. through Secretary and 7 others 19. Writ Petition No. 36795 of 2014 C.P.No.262, Head Constable Satyaveer Singh and 133 others vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 7 others 20. Writ Petition No. 36842 of 2014 Constable Civil Police 1095, Mohd. Sajid and 5 others vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 21. Writ Petition No. 37029 of 2014 Chandra Bhan and 56 others Vs. State of U.P. & 6 others 22. Writ Petition No. 37065 of 2014 Const. 803 C.P. Deepak Yadav and 63 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 4 others 23. Writ Petition No. 37101 of 2014 Constable 972691305 Santosh Kumar and 11 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 5 others 24. Writ Petition No. 37102 of 2014 Constable 062160546 Govind Tiwari and 34 others Vs.The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 5 others 25. Writ Petition No. 37409 of 2014 Ajit Singh Constable 382 Cp and 31 others Vs.The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 11 others 26. Writ Petition No. 37410 of 2014 Sant Ram Kol, Constable 627 Cp and 24 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secy./Secretary and 6 others 27. Writ Petition No. 37411 of 2014 Raja Ram, Head Constable (P) 57 Ap and 10 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secy./Secretary and 7 others 28. Writ Petition No. 37457 of 2014 Constable 952100474 Phool Chandra Ghanghar & 3 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 5 others 29. Writ Petition No. 37548 of 2014 Dheeraj Kumar, Constable No.145 Cp and 24 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 7 others 30. Writ Petition No. 37700 of 2014 Mohd. Anzar Ahmad, Constable 690 Cp and 29 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 31. Writ Petition No. 37703 of 2014 Abhaypal Singh Head Constable 14 Cp and 21 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 32. Writ Petition No. 37829 of 2014 Head Constable Veer Singh Civil Police Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 33. Writ Petition No. 37830 of 2014 Constable Sudheer Kumar C.P. No.828 Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 34. Writ Petition No. 37831 of 2014 Head Constable Chetram C.P. No.59 Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 35. Writ Petition No. 37835 of 2014 Constable 5 A.P. Vinod Kumar Singh and 23 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 8 others 36. Writ Petition No. 37837 of 2014 Constable 952 Ravindra Kumar and 29 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 7 others 37. Writ Petition No. 37922 of 2014 Constable Satyapal Singh C.P.820 and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 6 others 38. Writ Petition No. 37993 of 2014 Mahendra Singh and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 39. Writ Petition No. 38502 of 2014 H.C.68-Cp-P.No.862140119- Haridas Verma and 46 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 40. Writ Petition No. 38563 of 2014 Vipin Kumar Vs. The State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 41. Writ Petition No. 38638 of 2014 Constable Urmila Sharma C.P.1549 and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 5 others 42. Writ Petition No. 38912 of 2014 Jamil Ahmad, Constable 1576 Cp and 5 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 8 others 43. Writ Petition No. 38937 of 2014 Constable Cp No.1551 Manoj Pawar and 69 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 44. Writ Petition No. 39115 of 2014 Ram Raj Singh and 34 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 45. Writ Petition No. 39118 of 2014 Parashuram Yadav and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 46. Writ Petition No. 39122 of 2014 Om Veer Singh and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 47. Writ Petition No. 39142 of 2014 Rajeev Kumar and 37 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 48. Writ Petition No. 39145 of 2014 Raj Kumar and 35 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 49. Writ Petition No. 39198 of 2014 Constable Virendra Kumar and 47 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 50. Writ Petition No. 39378 of 2014 Girish Kumar Sharma Head Constable 91 Cp and 34 others Vs. The State of U.P. & 6 others 51. Writ Petition No. 39380 of 2014 Sanjeev Tyagi Constable 1125 Cp and 40 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 5 others 52. Writ Petition No. 39399 of 2014 H.C.259-Ramesh Babu Solanki and 19 others Vs. The State of U.P. through Secretary and 7 others 53. Writ Petition No. 39415 of 2014 Pramod Kumar, Constable No.552 Cp and 10 others Vs.The State of U.P. through Secretary and 5 others 54. Writ Petition No. 39643 of 2014 Constable 427 Ap Irfan Mohammad and another Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 55. Writ Petition No. 39669 of 2014 Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Constable No.600 Cp Vs.The State of U.P. and 3 others 56. Writ Petition No. 39670 of 2014 Harish Chandra Constable No.292 Cp and 10 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 57. Writ Petition No. 39723 of 2014 H.C.72 A.P. Arvind Kumar and 18 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 6 others 58. Writ Petition No. 39738 of 2014 Hc Constable 68 Cp Manoj Kumar Sharma and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 59. Writ Petition No. 40327 of 2014 Hcp. 35- Awadhesh Singh and 21 others vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 60. Writ Petition No. 40691 of 2014 Umesh Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 61. Writ Petition No. 40692 of 2014 Digamber Singh and 79 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 62. Writ Petition No. 40697 of 2014 Jitendra Singh and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 63. Writ Petition No. 40826 of 2014 Con. Ram Naresh Yadav and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 64. Writ Petition No. 40850 of 2014 Head Con. Surendra Kishore and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 65. Writ Petition No. 40872 of 2014 Const. 285- Cp-Kinnar Lal and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 66. Writ Petition No. 40874 of 2014 Constable-200-Cp- Santosh Kumar and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 67. Writ Petition No. 40875 of 2014 Hc-41- Jagdish Prasad and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 68. Writ Petition No. 40877 of 2014 Constable Shailendra Singh and 45 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 69. Writ Petition No. 41076 of 2014 Nand Kishore and 16 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 70. Writ Petition No. 41078 of 2014 Roshan Lal Yadav and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 71. Writ Petition No. 41081 of 2014 Brij Kumar Yadav and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 72. Writ Petition No. 41084 of 2014 Vishwanath Singh and 107 others Vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 73. Writ Petition No. 41134 of 2014 Suresh Chandra and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 74. Writ Petition No. 41681 of 2014 Constable 295-Pno No. 972140351 Jitendra Pawar & 6 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 75. Writ Petition No. 41771 of 2014 Hariom Shankar Constable 955 Cp & 64 others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 76. Writ Petition No. 41772 of 2014 Yashpal Yadav Constable 664 Cp & 343 others Vs. State of U.P. & 9 others 77. Writ Petition No. 41793 of 2014 Cp 418 Pno No. 112330239 Anu Rani & 22 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 78. Writ Petition No. 41796 of 2014 H.C.P. (I.T.I.) P.N.O. No.830090019 Arun Kumar Singh Parihar Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 79. Writ Petition No. 41798 of 2014 S.I. Special Pno No. 752011691 Raghubir Singh & 36 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 80. Writ Petition No. 41800 of 2014 Hcp Pno No. 80257056 Mangal Singh & 44 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 81. Writ Petition No. 41976 of 2014 Nisha Singh Lady Constable 1632 Pno No. 112280185 & Another Vs. State of U.P. & 6 others 82. Writ Petition No. 42011 of 2014 H.C.P. 160 C.P. Kuldeep Singh Pno No. 8109102851 & 12 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 83. Writ Petition No. 42013 of 2014 H.C.P. 438 Cp Pno No. 8109102851 Dilshad Khan & 24 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 84. Writ Petition No. 42396 of 2014 Devendra Singh Yadav and 21 others Vs. State of U.P. & 6 others 85. Writ Petition No. 42438 of 2014 Indrapal Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 86. Writ Petition No. 42449 of 2014 Shivdhar Yadav and 26 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others 87. Writ Petition No. 42508 of 2014 Ram Babu Yadav and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 88. Writ Petition No. 42511 of 2014 Yogendra Yadav and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 89. Writ Petition No. 42514 of 2014 Shiv Kumar Upadhyaya and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. &3 others 90. Writ Petition No. 42519 of 2014 Bhanu Pratap and 59 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 91. Writ Petition No. 42523 of 2014 Constable 36cp Pno No.052520310 Vijay Yadav and 6 others Vs.The State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 6 others 92. Writ Petition No. 42669 of 2014 Head Constable A.P. Faiyaz Ahmad and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 7 others 93. Writ Petition No. 42751 of 2014 Cheda Lal, Constable 336 C.P.(812121593) and 32 others Vs.The State of U.P. and 2 others 94. Writ Petition No. 42762 of 2014 Head Constable 792190356 Vidyakant Tiwari and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 95. Writ Petition No. 42790 of 2014 Head Constable 156 C.P. Jagat Singh Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 96. Writ Petition No. 42794 of 2014 Constable C.P. 572 Radha Charan and 39 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 3 others 97. Writ Petition No. 42809 of 2014 Sangeeta Devi Mahila Constable No.480 C.P. and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and 2 others 98. Writ Petition No. 42869 of 2014 Shiv Autar Singh Constable 381 Cp and 12 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 99. Writ Petition No. 42871 of 2014 Arun Kumar Constable 1003 Cp and 11 others Vs.The State of U.P. and 2 others 100. Writ Petition No. 42874 of 2014 Shiv Kumar Constable 1962 Cp and 133 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 101. Writ Petition No. 42877 of 2014 Pravindra Kumar Constable 921 Cp/Tp and 9 others Vs.The State of U.P. and 2 others 102. Writ Petition No. 42880 of 2014 Nathi Ram Head Constable (P) 18 Tp/Ap and 47 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 103. Writ Petition No. 43030 of 2014 Shesh Mani Pandey, Constable Driver and 4 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 104. Writ Petition No. 43032 of 2014 Geeta Bharti, Lady Constable 281 Cp and 31 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 105. Writ Petition No. 43053 of 2014 Samar Pal Singh Head Constable (P) 41cp and another Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 106. Writ Petition No. 43054 of 2014 Sudhir Chaudhary Constable 72 Cp and 4 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 107. Writ Petition No. 43056 of 2014 Krishna Kumar Constable 2616 Cp and 9 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 108. Writ Petition No. 43058 of 2014 Praveen Kumar Constable 146 Cp and 2 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 109. Writ Petition No. 43105 of 2014 Constable Suresh Babu (P.No.842412186) and 86 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 110. Writ Petition No. 43221 of 2014 Shiv Das Yadav, Constable 829 Cp and 14 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 5 others 111. Writ Petition No. 43222 of 2014 Babu Ram, Constable 287 Cp and 14 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 6 others 112. Writ Petition No. 43233 of 2014 Constable Avneesh Kumar Civil Police 669 and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 5 others 113. Writ Petition No. 43234 of 2014 Constable Omveer Singh Civil Police 940 and 16 others Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary and 4 others 114. Writ Petition No. 43239 of 2014 Kalika Prasad Mishra and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 115. Writ Petition No. 43248 of 2014 Constable 822661319 Dinesh Chandra Pandey and 17 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 116. Writ Petition No. 43250 of 2014 Constable Armourer 932520111 Sachidanand and 2 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 117. Writ Petition No. 43254 of 2014 Constable 856 Cp Rajiv Kumar and 152 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 118. Writ Petition No. 43457 of 2014 Constable 792 Cp Shesh Kumar Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 119. Writ Petition No. 43604 of 2014 Ashok Kumar Yadav(C.P.No.730, Npo 982380376) and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 120. Writ Petition No. 43622 of 2014 Ram Chandra Yadav Constable 457 Cp Pno No.952390756 & 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 121. Writ Petition No. 43629 of 2014 Raj Bali Yadav Constable 605 Cp Pno No.872190104 & 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 122. Writ Petition No. 43633 of 2014 Iqbal Ahmad Khan Constable Bigular 146 Ap. Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 123. Writ Petition No. 43636 of 2014 Sumitra Devi Patel and 71 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 124. Writ Petition No. 43657 of 2014 Anil Kumar Pno No. 882070452 and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 125. Writ Petition No. 43689 of 2014 Surendra Kumar Constable Driver vs. The State of U.P. & 2 others 126. Writ Petition No. 43692 of 2014 Gaurav Kumar Singh Constable 208 Cp and 30 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 127. Writ Petition No. 43694 of 2014 Sachin Kumar Constable 725 Cp and 33 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 128. Writ Petition No. 43699 of 2014 Rahul Dixit Constable 243 Ap and 27 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 2 others 129. Writ Petition No. 43704 of 2014 Rajveer Singh and 11 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 5 others 130. Writ Petition No. 43851 of 2014 C.P. 68 Vinod Kumar and 25 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 131. Writ Petition No. 43992 of 2014 Ap173 Pno No. 112611646 Suprabhat Rai Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 132. Writ Petition No. 43993 of 2014 Shiv Bir Singh and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 133. Writ Petition No. 43995 of 2014 Ram Sharan Ram and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 134. Writ Petition No. 43996 of 2014 Biresh Kumar Tyagi Constable 950 Cp and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 135. Writ Petition No. 43997 of 2014 Dharmendra Kumar Yadav Constable 638 Cp and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 136. Writ Petition No. 43998 of 2014 Ram Awadh Gautam Constable Cp Pno No. 112523350 and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 137. Writ Petition No. 44022 of 2014 Constable 052031003 Pankaj Dubey and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 138. Writ Petition No. 44023 of 2014 Cons. Driver 842690399 Sarnath Srivastava and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 139. Writ Petition No. 44062 of 2014 Constable 892764580 Jai Shankar Pandey and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and another 140. Writ Petition No. 44068 of 2014 Constable 287 Cp Vimal Kumar and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. and 9 others 141. Writ Petition No. 44070 of 2014 Const. 445 C.P.P. No. 902260029 Raghvendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 142. Writ Petition No. 44072 of 2014 H.C. 94 C.P. P.N. No. 802340436 Narayan Das and 60 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 143. Writ Petition No. 44076 of 2014 H.C. 17 C.P. P.N. No. 912261357 Shyam Veer Singh and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 144. Writ Petition No. 44077 of 2014 H.C. 36 C.P. P.N. No. 752450043 Naipal Singh and 47 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 145. Writ Petition No. 44078 of 2014 H.C. M.T. P.N.O. 882280486 Rajesh Kumar and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 146. Writ Petition No. 44085 of 2014 Const. 69 Cp Hari Om and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 147. Writ Petition No. 44149 of 2014 C 938 Jetendra Pratap and 15 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 148. Writ Petition No. 44333 of 2014 Constable 717 Cp, Anurag Kumar and 20 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 149. Writ Petition No. 44335 of 2014 C.P. Jeeraj Singh H.C. 450 No. 762530539 and 82 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 150. Writ Petition No. 44379 of 2014 Bhagyawati vs. State of U.P. & another 151. Writ Petition No. 44382 of 2014 Constable 1745 Cp Raj Kumar Patel and 14 others vs. The Secretary Home Uttar Pradesh Shashan and 2 others 152. Writ Petition No. 44399 of 2014 Constable 734 Cp Ajeet Singh vs. The Secretary Home Uttar Pradesh Shashan and 3 others 153. Writ Petition No. 44412 of 2014 Rameshwar Dayal and 18 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 154. Writ Petition No. 44415 of 2014 Sandeep Kumar and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 155. Writ Petition No. 44416 of 2014 Vijay Parasar and 52 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 156. Writ Petition No. 44417 of 2014 Hari Shankar Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 157. Writ Petition No. 44418 of 2014 Prakash Chandra and 47 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 158. Writ Petition No. 44419 of 2014 Rajkumar Chahar and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 159. Writ Petition No. 44436 of 2014 Hcp 28 Pno No. 870400052 Ramesh Chandra and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 160. Writ Petition No. 44657 of 2014 Jitendra Nath Singh and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 161. Writ Petition No. 44727 of 2014 Constable 292 Cp Lokesh Kumar and 265 others vs. State of U.P. and 8 others. 162. Writ Petition No. 44729 of 2014 H.C. 6 C.P. P. No. 922280043 Updesh Kumar and 21 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 163. Writ Petition No. 44780 of 2014 Aditya Kumar and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 164. Writ Petition No. 44875 of 2014 Const. Hukum Singh and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 165. Writ Petition No. 44879 of 2014 Constable 1137 Bharat Bhushan Vs.The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 3 others 166. Writ Petition No. 44880 of 2014 Constable 2572 Dinesh Kumar Gautam and 20 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 167. Writ Petition No. 44881 of 2014 Constable 125 Devendra Yadav and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 168. Writ Petition No. 44883 of 2014 Constable Ashok Kumar and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. & 4 others 169. Writ Petition No. 44885 of 2014 Head Constable Rampal Singh Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 170. Writ Petition No. 44942 of 2014 Constable 4680cp Pno No.902411980 Mohd. Javed vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 171. Writ Petition No. 44945 of 2014 Ajay Kumar Singh and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 172. Writ Petition No. 44946 of 2014 Constable 052520046 Manoj Kumar Yadav and 15 others vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 173. Writ Petition No. 44947 of 2014 Rama Kant Dwivedi and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 174. Writ Petition No. 44948 of 2014 Constable 686 Pno No. 062540373 Nadeem Khan and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 175. Writ Petition No. 44949 of 2014 Mukteshwar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and another 176. Writ Petition No. 44950 of 2014 Head Constable 90 Cp Pno No. 762290855 Vijay Pal & 83 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 177. Writ Petition No. 44951 of 2014 Nirmal Maseeh Lady Constable and 22 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 178. Writ Petition No. 44952 of 2014 Const 1650 cp no 912540090 Bijendra Singh Rathi & 59 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 179. Writ Petition No. 44957 of 2014 Constable 902520024 Kripa Shankar Singh and 23 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 180. Writ Petition No. 44958 of 2014 Hari Om Tyagi and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 181. Writ Petition No. 44960 of 2014 Dharmendra and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 182. Writ Petition No. 44963 of 2014 Gajraj Singh and 32 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 183. Writ Petition No. 44966 of 2014 Shiv Singh and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 184. Writ Petition No. 44969 of 2014 Constable Dinesh Kumar and 2 others vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 185. Writ Petition No. 45210 of 2014 Constable 340 Cp Dinesh Kumar and 128 others Vs.The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 8 others 186. Writ Petition No. 45240 of 2014 C.P. 592 Harpal Singh and 29 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 187. Writ Petition No. 45430 of 2014 Uday Bhan Yadav and 20 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 188. Writ Petition No. 45432 of 2014 Ram Sevak Yadav and 76 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 189. Writ Petition No. 45434 of 2014 Naresh Chandra and 20 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 190. Writ Petition No. 45436 of 2014 Shiv Prakash Yadav and 30 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 191. Writ Petition No. 45437 of 2014 Amit Kumar and 44 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 192. Writ Petition No. 45438 of 2014 Dev Raj Singh and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 193. Writ Petition No. 45439 of 2014 Pawan Kumar and 35 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 194. Writ Petition No.45440 of 2014 Vipin Kumar and 34 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 195. Writ Petition No. 45441 of 2014 Amerandra Singh and 28 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 196. Writ Petition No. 45471 of 2014 Constable 778 Cp Deepak Kumar and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 197. Writ Petition No. 45472 of 2014 Constable Ap 272 Chiranjeet and 62 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 198. Writ Petition No. 45668 of 2014 Constable No. 531 Bhujveer Singh C.P. 55 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 199. Writ Petition No. 45671 of 2014 Harish Chandra and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 200. Writ Petition No. 45672 of 2014 Mundraj Kumar and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 201. Writ Petition No. 45673 of 2014 Shiv Badan Yadav and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 202. Writ Petition No. 45674 of 2014 Shyam Veer Singh and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 203. Writ Petition No. 45675 of 2014 Vidya Kant Shukla and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 204. Writ Petition No.45688 of 2014 Dharmendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 205. Writ Petition No. 45697 of 2014 Constable 192 A.P. Pno No. 112563976 Dusyant Singh & 21 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 206. Writ Petition No. 45699 of 2014 Virendar Singh and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 207. Writ Petition No. 45700 of 2014 Naresh Pal Singh and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 208. Writ Petition No. 45806 of 2014 Manoj Kumar Sharma and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 209. Writ Petition No. 46056 of 2014 Constable 766 Cp Dhirendra Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 210. Writ Petition No.46077 of 2014 Const.1999 Cp Parshuram and 4 others vs. State of U.P. & 4 others 211. Writ Petition No. 46079 of 2014 Shivam Tyagi and 24 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 212. Writ Petition No. 46081 of 2014 Subhash Chandra and 30 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 213. Writ Petition No. 46083 of 2014 Bhola Singh and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 214. Writ Petition No. 46084 of 2014 Ram Prakash and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 215. Writ Petition No. 46277 of 2014 Constable 93cp Rampal Singh and 171 others Vs. Secretary Home U.P Shashan Secretariat Lucknow & 9 others 216. Writ Petition No. 46305 of 2014 Raj Kumar Pandey,Pno No 982390067 Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 217. Writ Petition No.46309 of 2014 Ratan Lal, Constable 750 Cp Pno No 822510969 & 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 218. Writ Petition No. 46314 of 2014 Asharfi Lal Yadav, Constable 13 Cp & 23 others Vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 219. Writ Petition No. 46329 of 2014 Constable 952030894 Laxman Prasad and 30 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 220. Writ Petition No. 46330 of 2014 Lady Constable 962190072 Manju Devi and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 221. Writ Petition No. 46331 of 2014 Sanjay Kumar Singh and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 222. Writ Petition No. 46334 of 2014 Ram Jiwawan and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 223. Writ Petition No. 46338 of 2014 Sakal Deep Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 224. Writ Petition No. 46348 of 2014 Constable 595 C.P. Ashok Kumar Mishra &16 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 225. Writ Petition No. 46367 of 2014 Vinod Kumar (Const.35 Ap) and 39 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 226. Writ Petition No. 46379 of 2014 Constable Bandan Baksh Cp 432 Pno 952590534 and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 227. Writ Petition No. 46385 of 2014 Head Constable Dharam Veer Singh and 13 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 228. Writ Petition No. 46392 of 2014 C.P.784 Pankaj,Pno No 982440102 and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 229. Writ Petition No. 46526 of 2014 Constable-2165-Cp-Pno No.982331635 Om Pal Singh and 22 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 230. Writ Petition No. 46527 of 2014 Cp-1148-Pno No.902650059 Deepak Kumar and 7 others Vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 231. Writ Petition No. 46528 of 2014 Constable-260-Hc-Pno No.802650074 Sri Ram and 70 others vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others 232. Writ Petition No. 46549 of 2014 Anand Kumar Tiwari (Pno 052300673) & 17 others Vs. State of U.P. & 6 others 233. Writ Petition No. 46570 of 2014 Constable 1973 Cp Yogesh Sharma and 4 others Vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 3 others 234. Writ Petition No. 46572 of 2014 Constable Driver Dushyant Kumar and 14 others Vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 3 others 235. Writ Petition No. 46615 of 2014 Roop Kishore Tyagi and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 236. Writ Petition No. 46636 of 2014 Constable Mohan Lal and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 237. Writ Petition No. 46639 of 2014 Dhramveer Singh and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 238. Writ Petition No. 46643 of 2014 Shobhnath Yadav and 20 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 239. Writ Petition No. 46645 of 2014 Vinay Kumar Yadav and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 240. Writ Petition No. 46671 of 2014 Constable 2738 Cp Pno No. 52411364 Jabir Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 241. Writ Petition No. 46674 of 2014 Head Constable A.P. 892520701 Mohd. Iliyas and 47 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 242. Writ Petition No. 46675 of 2014 Devendra Pal Singh and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 243. Writ Petition No. 46676 of 2014 Abhilakh Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 244. Writ Petition No. 46677 of 2014 Ram Surat Ram and 39 others Vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 245. Writ Petition No. 46684 of 2014 Constable 862691082 Ashok Singh and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 246. Writ Petition No. 46917 of 2014 Satya Pal Singh Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 247. Writ Petition No. 46946 of 2014 Nitya Nand Tripathi and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 248. Writ Petition No. 46949 of 2014 Constable 4506 C.P. Shailendra Kumar vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 249. Writ Petition No. 46952 of 2014 Ashok Kumar Gautam and 83 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 250. Writ Petition No. 46956 of 2014 Sahdev Yadav and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 251. Writ Petition No. 46958 of 2014 Mohmmad Arif and 27 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 252. Writ Petition No. 46961 of 2014 Constable 129 Ap Rahul Kumar and 70 others Vs.The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 8 others 253. Writ Petition No. 46964 of 2014 Constable 51 Cp Dheerendra Kumar and 10 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 254. Writ Petition No. 46967 of 2014 Santosh Kumar Tripathi Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 255. Writ Petition No. 46970 of 2014 Mahendra Singh and another. Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 256. Writ Petition No. 46971 of 2014 Yashpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 257. Writ Petition No. 46995 of 2014 Ranjeet Prasad Gupta and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 258. Writ Petition No. 46997 of 2014 Raj Kumar Singh and 29 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 259. Writ Petition No. 46998 of 2014 Head Constable 812610709 Krishna Surat Yadav and 42 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 260. Writ Petition No. 47000 of 2014 Sunil Kumar and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 261. Writ Petition No. 47001 of 2014 Omkar Singh and 4 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 262. Writ Petition No. 47002 of 2014 Amar Nath Verma and 30 others Vs. State of U.P. and 15 others 263. Writ Petition No. 47003 of 2014 Mahendra Kumar Yadav and 26 others Vs. State of U.P. & 5 others 264. Writ Petition No. 47004 of 2014 SI (V) Rameshwar Dayal Pno No. 772670555 and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 265. Writ Petition No. 47011 of 2014 Anil Kumar and 27 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 266. Writ Petition No. 47012 of 2014 Constable 775 C.P. Gopal Yadav and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 267. Writ Petition No. 47018 of 2014 Lokendra Singh and 45 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 268. Writ Petition No. 47019 of 2014 Aadesh Kumar and 32 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 269. Writ Petition No. 47021 of 2014 Visheshwar Dayal and 18 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 270. Writ Petition No. 47025 of 2014 Bharat Singh and 23 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 271. Writ Petition No. 47026 of 2014 Mohd. Naseem and 25 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 272. Writ Petition No. 47028 of 2014 Charan Singh and 8 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 273. Writ Petition No. 47111 of 2014 Head Constable 34 Jitendra Kumar and 9 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 274. Writ Petition No. 47257 of 2014 Const.-1360 Cp Pno No. 062331715 Sandeep Kumar Yadav &14 others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 275. Writ Petition No. 47261 of 2014 Head Const.-25-Ap-Pno No. 902540576 Subhash Chandra & 24 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 276. Writ Petition No. 47277 of 2014 Ram Chandra Singh and 11 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 277. Writ Petition No. 47338 of 2014 Driver Haseeb Beg and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 278. Writ Petition No. 47341 of 2014 Constable C.P. Siyaram Singh Yadav and 29 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 279. Writ Petition No. 47342 of 2014 C.P. 850 Jaiveer Singh and 33 others Vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 280. Writ Petition No. 47343 of 2014 Const. Cp Awdhesh Yadav, P.No. 912050487 and 26 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 281. Writ Petition No. 47370 of 2014 Cp-441 Pno No. 932610067 Manoj Kumar and 3 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 282. Writ Petition No. 47371 of 2014 Constable 062630085 Numan Raza Siddiqui and 17 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 283. Writ Petition No. 47372 of 2014 Dukhanti and 31 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 284. Writ Petition No. 47374 of 2014 Const. 1111 C.P. P. No. 952390860 Mulayam Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 285. Writ Petition No. 47375 of 2014 Const. 619 C.P. P. No. 062280932 Rajendra Singh and 34 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 286. Writ Petition No. 47376 of 2014 H.C. 14 C.P. P.N. No. 782412389 Udai Veer Singh and 25 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 287. Writ Petition No. 47563 of 2014 Ram Gopal Pandey and 43 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 288. Writ Petition No. 47565 of 2014 Ramanand Yadav and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 289. Writ Petition No. 47567 of 2014 Ashok Kumar Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 290. Writ Petition No. 47569 of 2014 Mohd. Ateeque vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 291. Writ Petition No. 47570 of 2014 Ravindra Kumar Singh and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 292. Writ Petition No. 47573 of 2014 Satyapal Yadav and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 293. Writ Petition No. 47577 of 2014 Aadesh Kumar and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 294. Writ Petition No. 47580 of 2014 Const. Ramesh Singh and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 295. Writ Petition No. 47662 of 2014 Constable 892090833 Vijay Shankar Shukla & 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 296. Writ Petition No. 47669 of 2014 H.C. 196 C.P. Munna Lal and 23 others vs. State of U.P. & 2 others 297. Writ Petition No. 47673 of 2014 Anil Kumar Rai and 37 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 298. Writ Petition No. 47676 of 2014 Sunil Kumar, Constable 1607 Cp and 38 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 299. Writ Petition No. 47684 of 2014 Shiv Kumar Sharma and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 300. Writ Petition No. 47685 of 2014 Om Pal Singh and 23 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 301. Writ Petition No. 47687 of 2014 Ram Phool Pathak and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 302. Writ Petition No. 47688 of 2014 Hari Shankar Chauhan and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 303. Writ Petition No. 47702 of 2014 Vinod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 304. Writ Petition No. 47756 of 2014 Ram Kumar Pandey and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 305. Writ Petition No. 47759 of 2014 Iqrar Siddiqui and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 306. Writ Petition No. 47762 of 2014 Const. Udaiveer Singh and 29 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 307. Writ Petition No. 47814 of 2014 Rajesh Yadav and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 308. Writ Petition No. 47817 of 2014 Const. Anil Kumar and 25 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 6 others 309. Writ Petition No. 47824 of 2014 Const. Shakti Singh and 97 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 8 others 310. Writ Petition No. 47826 of 2014 Rama Tyagi and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 311. Writ Petition No. 47827 of 2014 Devendra Singh and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 312. Writ Petition No. 47828 of 2014 Gyanendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 313. Writ Petition No. 47829 of 2014 Mukesh Kumar Sharma and another vs. State of U.P. 2 others 314. Writ Petition No. 47830 of 2014 Om Prakash Yadav and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 315. Writ Petition No. 47831 of 2014 Shiv Charan Singh Yadav and 3 others vs. State of U.P. & 4 others 316. Writ Petition No. 47832 of 2014 Ravi Kant Yadav and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 317. Writ Petition No. 47833 of 2014 Priti Sharma and 18 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 318. Writ Petition No. 47834 of 2014 Vineet Kumar Dubey and 30 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 319. Writ Petition No. 47872 of 2014 Hc 85 Cp Satyavir Singh and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 320. Writ Petition No. 47874 of 2014 Satyapal Singh and 54 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 321. Writ Petition No. 48117 of 2014 Rakesh Kumar and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 322. Writ Petition No. 48118 of 2014 Const. Rakesh Chandra Chaubey vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 323. Writ Petition No. 48143 of 2014 Const. Mohd. Firoz and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 324. Writ Petition No. 48144 of 2014 Const. Anees Ahmad and 3 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 3 others 325. Writ Petition No. 48146 of 2014 Const. Om Prakash and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 326. Writ Petition No. 48148 of 2014 Vinod Kumar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 327. Writ Petition No. 48151 of 2014 Khirodhan Kumar Singh and 20 others vs. State of U.P. & 3 others 328. Writ Petition No. 48298 of 2014 Mubarak Husain and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 329. Writ Petition No. 48393 of 2014 Kuldeep Chauhan and 21 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 330. Writ Petition No. 48395 of 2014 Parmanand and 50 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 331. Writ Petition No. 48397 of 2014 Ved Prakash Dwivedi and 22 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 332. Writ Petition No. 48398 of 2014 Vivek Kumar Yadav and 26 others vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 333. Writ Petition No. 48400 of 2014 Vijay Kumar and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 334. Writ Petition No. 48401 of 2014 Lakhan Singh and 19 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 335. Writ Petition No. 48402 of 2014 Rajbar Singh and 36 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 336. Writ Petition No. 48403 of 2014 Awadh Bihari and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 337. Writ Petition No. 48404 of 2014 Radhey Shyam Singh Yadav and 57 others vs. State of U.P. and 8 others 338. Writ Petition No. 48405 of 2014 Jai Prakash Singh and 26 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 339. Writ Petition No. 48416 of 2014 Amrish Kumar Tyagi and 25 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 7 others 340. Writ Petition No. 48601 of 2014 Dharmendra Kumar Kashyap and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 341. Writ Petition No. 48615 of 2014 Mukesh Kumar Gond and 26 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 342. Writ Petition No. 48624 of 2014 Ravi Kumar and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 343. Writ Petition No. 48626 of 2014 Rajesh Kumar and 31 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 344. Writ Petition No. 48627 of 2014 Rajendra Singh and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 345. Writ Petition No. 48629 of 2014 Pushpendra Singh and 43 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 346. Writ Petition No. 48630 of 2014 Sita Ram Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 347. Writ Petition No. 48632 of 2014 Shiv Om Pathak and 15 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 348. Writ Petition No. 48789 of 2014 Ranjeet Singh and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 349. Writ Petition No. 48890 of 2014 Kamlesh Kumar and 114 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 350. Writ Petition No. 48893 of 2014 Ajeet Kumar Yadav and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 351. Writ Petition No. 48896 of 2014 Adya Prasad Tiwari and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 352. Writ Petition No. 48897 of 2014 Dharmdeo Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 353. Writ Petition No. 48903 of 2014 S.I. Special Category, Karan Singh and 74 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 354. Writ Petition No. 48906 of 2014 Ram Naresh and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 355. Writ Petition No. 48928 of 2014 Suryabhan Yadav and 20 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 356. Writ Petition No. 48929 of 2014 Vidya Sagar Mishra and 12 othersvs. State of U.P. and 4 others 357. Writ Petition No. 49070 of 2014 Ashwani Kumar and 23 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 358. Writ Petition No. 49090 of 2014 Lal Bahadur and 15 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 6 others 359. Writ Petition No. 49159 of 2014 Chatur Bihari and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 360. Writ Petition No. 49161 of 2014 Ajay Kumar Singh and 21 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 361. Writ Petition No. 49193 of 2014 Amarpal Singh and 71 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 362. Writ Petition No. 49195 of 2014 Ram Saran Shukla and 23 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 363. Writ Petition No. 49196 of 2014 Lala Ram and 29 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 364. Writ Petition No. 49197 of 2014 Prakash Veer Singh and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 365. Writ Petition No. 49458 of 2014 Yogendra Pal and 11 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 366. Writ Petition No. 49494 of 2014 Sandeep Kumar and 15 others vs. Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 5 others 367. Writ Petition No. 49500 of 2014 Rishi Pal Singh and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 368. Writ Petition No. 49501 of 2014 Istajab Ali Khan and 12 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 369. Writ Petition No. 49601 of 2014 Pradeep Kumar and 21 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 370. Writ Petition No. 49627 of 2014 Ram Chandra Singh and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 371. Writ Petition No. 49629 of 2014 Vivek Kumar and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 372. Writ Petition No. 49633 of 2014 Jitendra Kumar and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 373. Writ Petition No. 49634 of 2014 Uma Shankar and 15 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 374. Writ Petition No. 49635 of 2014 Kripal Singh and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 375. Writ Petition No. 49636 of 2014 Jagannath Yadav and 107 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 376. Writ Petition No. 49717 of 2014 Mohd. Sakir and 4 others vs. Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 4 others 377. Writ Petition No. 49742 of 2014 Rohit Kumar and 50 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 378. Writ Petition No. 49980 of 2014 Stya Nand Yadav and 46 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 379. Writ Petition No. 49982 of 2014 Mahshar Ali and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 380. Writ Petition No. 50026 of 2014 Kripal Singh and 15 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 381. Writ Petition No. 50027 of 2014 Ashok Kumar and 29 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 382. Writ Petition No. 50028 of 2014 Om Pal Singh and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 383. Writ Petition No. 50029 of 2014 Rohan Singh and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 384. Writ Petition No. 50030 of 2014 Sitaram and 10 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 7 others 385. Writ Petition No. 50049 of 2014 Shiv Lal Yadav and 42 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 386. Writ Petition No. 50051 of 2014 Keshav Dev Singh and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 387. Writ Petition No. 50052 of 2014 Yogendra Singh and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 388. Writ Petition No. 50333 of 2014 Rishi Pal Singh and 28 others vs. State of U.P. and 5 others 389. Writ Petition No. 50337 of 2014 Sandeep Singh and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 390. Writ Petition No. 50342 of 2014 Bhawnar Pal Singh and 9 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 391. Writ Petition No. 50343 of 2014 Ram Prakash Yadav and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 392. Writ Petition No. 50344 of 2014 Akhilesh Yadav and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 393. Writ Petition No. 50426 of 2014 Suresh Pal and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 394. Writ Petition No. 50431 of 2014 Anil Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 395. Writ Petition No. 50448 of 2014 Ashok Kumar and 6 others vs. The Secretary Home U.P. Shashan Secretariat and 5 others 396. Writ Petition No. 50454 of 2014 Pawan Kumar Bhardwaj and 17 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 397. Writ Petition No. 50455 of 2014 Archana Katara and 22 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 398. Writ Petition No. 50456 of 2014 Tarkeshwar Nath Singh and 74 others vs. State of U.P. and 6 others 399. Writ Petition No. 50585 of 2014 Smt. Durgawati Devi and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 400. Writ Petition No. 50599 of 2014 Ajai Kumar Singh and 35 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 401. Writ Petition No. 50684 of 2014 Samrat Singh and 32 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 402. Writ Petition No. 50686 of 2014 Man Mohan Yadav and 30 others vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 403. Writ Petition No. 50742 of 2014 Rishi Pal Singh and 14 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 404. Writ Petition No. 50791 of 2014 Nilesh Kumar and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 405. Writ Petition No. 50793 of 2014 Rakesh Kumar and 4 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 406. Writ Petition No. 50811 of 2014 Avinash Kumar and 25 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
1. The head constables and constables are the lowest in the hierarchy of non gazetted officers of the Police Force. They play a vital role in maintaining law and order, preventing and detecting crime and in helping courts of law punish the guilty. This bunch of petitions is by such officers of the Police Force, aggrieved by Government Order dated 7.6.2014 imposing ban on their posting in districts adjoining their home district. The consequential transfer orders are also under challenge. As common questions of law and fact are involved in these cases, same are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is wholly illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as it does not contain any reason for cancellation of the previous Government Order dated 20.3.2012, whereby, relaxation was granted in posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district, by amending Government Order dated 11.6.1986. It was further contended that the Government Order in question is a result of political vendetta, as the Government feels that its defeat in the Lok Sabha election is on account of non-extension of co-operation by the petitioners. In other words, the impugned Government Order has been issued to teach lesson to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the transfer policy is contained in the Police Regulations, which has statutory force and the Government Order in question being not referable to any of the provisions contained under Paragraph 520-526 thereof, is thus, contrary to the statutory provisions. The impugned transfer orders have not been issued on administrative grounds or in exigencies of service, thus, cannot be sustained in law. The personal hardship of the petitioners has not been considered. In various cases, transfer orders have been passed in mid session, entailing great hardship to the petitioners and members of their family. It was further urged that in any case, the impugned Government Order can only be applied prospectively and there is no mandate for transferring the incumbents posted in bordering districts forthwith. In some of the writ petitions, particularly in Writ Petition No.39723 of 2014, Sri B.C. Rai Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the petitioners, therein, are members of Armed Police, who are not concerned with day-to-day maintenance of law and order in the State. Consequently, they cannot be brought within the purview of the impugned Government Order. It is further contended that the Government Order in question is not referable to Section 46 of the U.P. Police Act, 1861, which confers power in the State to make rules and thus, the impugned Government Order is wholly contrary to the provisions of Section 46. The impugned transfers have been made with the approval of the Regional Police Establishment Boards, the constitution of which is contrary to the directions contained in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 (8) SCC 1 and thus, the transfers made on its recommendation, are wholly illegal.
3. On the other hand, learned standing counsel placing reliance on the letter dated 28.5.2014 written by Director General of Police to the Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Government, Lucknow contended that past experience had shown that constables and head constables posted in districts bordering their home district were found missing from their place of posting during nights. They go to their home, being nearby their place of posting. They were thus not available in emergency, adversely affecting law and order. It was further found that on account of their posting in bordering districts, they were interfering in trivial matters, being connected with one party or the other. This impacts their impartiality and the image of the Police Force. Consequently, the Government, in order to improve law and order situation in the State and efficiency of the police force, issued the impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014. The allegation of political vendetta in issuing the impugned Government Order is specifically denied. It was contended that the decision has been taken in public interest. It was further submitted that the police force is quite different and distinguishable from other State services. This is borne out from the fact that there is a separate entry relating to 'police' being Entry No.2 in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. The police force is regulated by the Police Act, 1861, the Rules framed thereunder, the Police Regulations and the executive instructions in the nature of Government Orders. It is contended that the impugned Government Order only supplements the existing provisions under the Police Regulations and is, in no manner, contrary to it. It was further submitted that the constitution of Police Establishment Board, without Director General of Police as its Chairman, has been found to be valid and legal by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar and another Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (7) ADJ 315 and the Division Bench in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. C.P. Ravindra Singh and others 2011 (2) ADJ 177. It was further submitted that under Section 2 of the Police Act, the entire police establishment is deemed to be one Police Force, as such, the members of the Armed Police Force cannot be treated differently, as compared to those working under Civil Police, as contended by the petitioners posted in the Armed Police.
Validity of Regional Police Establishment Boards:-
4. The first question, therefore, for consideration is whether the constitution of Police Establishment Boards vide Government Order dated 8.4.2010 of which the Director General of Police is not the Chairman, is contrary to the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra). For the said purpose, the background in which the Apex Court directed for constitution of the Police Establishment Board in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), is to be noticed. The Apex Court issued various directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories to establish Police Establishment Boards with the object of insulating the police from political pressures and other extraneous considerations in the matter of their transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters. Directions contained in this regard, in paragraph 31 of the judgment, relating to establishment to Police Establishment Board are as under:-
"Police Establishment Board (5). There shall be a Police Establishment Board in each State which shall decide all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Establishment Board shall be a departmental body comprising the Director General of Police and four other senior officers of the Department. The State Government may interfere with the decision of the Board in exceptional cases only after recording its reasons for doing so. The Board shall also be authorized to make appropriate recommendations to the State Government regarding the postings and transfers of officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police, and the Government is expected to give due weight to these recommendations and shall normally accept it. It shall also function as a forum of appeal for disposing of representations from officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above regarding their promotions/transfers/disciplinary proceedings or their being subjected to illegal or irregular orders and generally reviewing the functioning of the police in the State."
(Emphasis Supplied)
5. In order to implement the directions given in the case of Prakash Singh (supra), the State Government issued Government Order dated 12.3.2008 for constitution of four different Police Establishment Boards for regulating the transfers and postings and others service matters of different ranks of the police force. The Police Establishment Board for Sub Inspectors and officials below such rank comprises of the Inspector General of Police (Establishment) as its Chairman instead of Director General of Police, as provided under the judgment of the Apex Court. The constitution of the Police Establishment Board as provided under Government Order dated 12.3.2008 became subject matter of consideration by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra). The Full Bench, after noticing the conflict between the Division Bench Judgments of this Court, held as under:-
"19. It is true that there may be no strict compliance in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra) insofar as one of the Boards is concerned. The Government has attempted to contend that the notification has to be read with the exercise of power under Section 2 of the Police Act. There is a power in the State Government under Section 2 to have issued notification constituting the Boards. The section does not provide for the publication or laying of the Rules or Regulations made thereunder before the Legislature. In other words, the power conferred on the Government, as a delegate, to make Rules is not subject to any control by the Legislature. Rules as held by the judgment of the Supreme Court can be made under Section 2 of the Police Act. The Government, in the absence of legislation, in exercise of its power under Article 309 of the Constitution should have made rules governing the conditions of service. In the instant case, there is legislation governing transfers, but there is no provision for constitution of Boards. The Boards have been constituted by the State in exercise of its executive powers. It is now well settled that in an area, where rule or existing law is silent in the matter of conditions of service, administrative instructions can be issued to fill in the void or gap, which the State has done. However, we have held that the notification for reasons given cannot be held to be an exercise of power under Section 2 of the Police Act.
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 also a part of the public services of the State, therefore, insofar as the police are concerned, the Regulation pertaining to transfer would continue to apply to them. Therefore, though one of the Boards constituted is not strictly in terms of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra), nonetheless considering the exercise that has to be done and the provisions for transfer, as contained in the Police Regulations, there has been sufficient compliance.
21. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that, though we have found that the notification constituting the Board is not traceable to Section 2 of the Police Act, the same at the highest, amounts to an irregularity and not illegality and would not vitiate the transfers, if they have been done in terms of the Regulations and after the approval of the Board. (Emphasis Supplied)
6. Later came another judgment by Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. C.P. Ravindra Singh and others 2011 (2) ADJ 177, wherein, similar plea was raised regarding invalidity in the constitution of the Police Establishment Board. However, the argument was repelled by holding as under:-
"According to us, pluralistic view in the place and instead of singular view is one of the devices to maintain transparency. It avoids possibilities of motivated action, biasness or influence in the cases of transfer. To that extent, there is no conflict between Prakash Singh (supra) and the steps taken by the State. The only issue is whether the State has strictly complied with or sufficiently complied with the direction of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra). According to the Full Bench of this High Court in Vinod Kumar (supra), direction has been sufficiently complied with. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has given an explanation by saying that the position of the State of Uttar Pradesh as regards its vastness and population may not be similar with various other States. Therefore, if the Board is constituted strictly in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court then the State will not get full time engagement of such officers to maintain the law and order situation of the State. To that, it is desirable that the State should explain such position before the Supreme Court. It is expected that by now it has been done by the State. But so far as the existing position is concerned, this Division Bench will be governed by both, Prakash Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra) and a conjoint reading of both the judgements speaks that a mode or mechanism of plurality has been adopted by the State, in spite of the existing law. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to negate the orders of transfer, as were impugned in the writ petition."
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. However, Sri Vijai Guatam, learned counsel appearing in some of the writ petitions tried to distinguish the aforesaid judgments by contending that the Full Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and the Division Bench in the case of Ravindra Singh (supra) were considering the constitution of the Police Establishment Board under Government Order dated 12.3.2008, while the Regional Police Establishment Boards on whose recommendations, impugned transfers have been made, are constituted under Government Order dated 8.4.2010. It is submitted that the constitution of Regional Police Establishment Boards, in none of which, the Director General of Police is the Chairman, is contrary to the directives given by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) and thus, the impugned transfers effected on basis of such recommendations, are not legally valid.
8. On the other hand, learned standing counsel contended that the Government Order dated 8.4.2010 was issued as a single Police Establishment Board constituted under the Government Order dated 12.3.2008 for police officials upto the rank of Sub Inspector, was creating administrative difficulties on account of large number of such officials in the police force of the State. It is submitted that care has been taken to ensure independence of the Regional Police Establishment Board, as per the objective laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra).
9. The preface to the Government Order dated 8.4.2010 mentions that Police Establishment Board constituted under Government Order dated 12.3.2008 and 27.11.2008 for police officials upto the rank of Inspector resulted in administrative and practical problems in view of large number of police officials of such rank in the police force of the State. Consequently, for regulating the transfers and postings of police officials upto the rank of Inspector within the region, Regional Police Establishment Boards have been constituted as under:-
"(a) Regional Inspector General of Police/Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police as its Chairman, apart from two senior most officers."
10. Thus, for effecting transfers at the regional level, Police Establishment Boards at regional level were established with highest police officer at the regional level viz. Inspector General of Police/Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police as its Chairman. The other two senior most officers of the region are its members. The Full Bench in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) and Division Bench in the case of Ravindra Singh (supra) have held that constitution of Police Establishment Board without Director General of Police as its chairman, can at best be an irregularity and not illegality, till its independence is ensured and the mechanism of plurality is maintained. It was concluded that constitution of Police Establishment Board for police officers below the rank of Inspectors, without Director General of Police as its Chairman, is substantially in keeping with the spirit of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) and recommendations made by such Board, cannot vitiate the transfers. Applying these principles, I find that Regional Police Establishment Boards constituted under Government Order dated 8.4.2010 for effecting transfer at the regional level fulfills both the criteria. These are headed by the highest police officials of the region and at the same time, retains the character of pluralism, being a multi member body. Thus, transfers and postings of members of the Police Force within the region remains under the control of an independent body comprising of highest police officials of the region, thereby achieving the principal object of insulating transfers and postings from political interference. Consequently, the transfers made on its recommendations cannot be held to be illegal as to warrant interference by this Court.
Whether Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is illegal and arbitrary:-
11. This takes the Court to the next question as to whether the impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014 is illegal, irrational, arbitrary for non-disclosure of reasons for issuance thereof or is contrary to the Act, the Rules and the Police Regulations.
12. According to the State respondents, the impugned Government Order has been issued with the object of strengthening the law and order situation in the State. It has been issued in larger public interest. It is contended that question as to how law and order can be improved in the State, is in the exclusive domain of the executive and the administrative power of the State. The policy decision of the State, taken in this regard, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The impugned Government Order is neither illegal nor arbitrary nor contrary to the provisions of the Act, Rules or the Police Regulations.
13. The power of the Executive Government to frame policies to run day-to-day administration and to maintain law and order, cannot be doubted. Nay, it is the duty of the State to regulate its policies for common good of its people. Normally, Courts do not interfere in the framing of policies and their implementation but can it be said that policies framed by the State Government are beyond judicial review, if not, what is the scope of interference by Courts of law. There are line of decisions on the subject, some of which requires to be noted in brief, to test the argument made by the parties.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502 was judging the challenge laid to the decisions of the Government to discontinue Fast Track Courts. After analysing several decisions on the subject, their Lordships of the Supreme Court summarised the test for judicial review of policy decisions as under:-
"100. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as:
(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. (II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention. (III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, etc. (IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions. (V) It is dehors the provisions of the Act or legislations.
(VI) If the delegate has acted beyond its power of delegation."
15. It was ultimately concluded by holding that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in absolute terms and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Somewhat similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority and another Vs. Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and others (2008) 2 SCC 672 by laying down as under:-
"65. Broadly, a policy decision is subject to judicial review on the following grounds:
(a) if it is unconstitutional;
(b) if it is dehors the provisions of the Act and the regulations; (c) if the delegatee has acted beyond its power of delegation; (d) if the executive policy is contrary to the statutory or a larger policy."
16. Applying these broad principles, I proceed to test the argument of the petitioners laying challenge to the Government Order in question.
17. For appreciating the issue, certain statutory provisions may be noted. Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 provides for the constitution of the police force in the State and it reads as under:-
"2. Constitution of the force:- The entire police-establishment under a [State Government] shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police-force and shall be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government.
[Subject to the provisions of this Act, the pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police-force shall be such as may be determined by the [State Government]]."
18. Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861 confers power in the State to make rules consistent with the Act. The State Government, in exercise of such power, had framed U.P. Police Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008 and Rule 26 thereof provides as under:-
"26. Regulation of other matters.- In regard to the matters not specifically covered by these rules or special orders persons appointed to the service shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to Government Servants serving in connection with the affairs of the State."
19. Paragraphs 520 to 525 of the Police Regulations framed under the Act lay down broad principles regarding transfer of the officials of the Police Force. Paragraph 520, which is relevant for the present controversy, is reproduced below:-
"520. Transfer of Gazetted Officers are made by the Governor in Council.
The Inspector General may transfer Police Officers not above the rank of inspector throughout the province.
The Deputy Inspector General of Police of the range may transfer inspectors, sub-inspectors, head constables and constables, within his range; provided that the postings and transfers of inspectors and reserve sub-inspectors in hill stations will be decided by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Headquarters.
Transfers which result in officers being stationed far from their homes should be avoided as much as possible. Officers above the rank of constable should ordinarily not be allowed to serve in districts in which they reside or have landed property. In the case of constables the numbers must be restricted as far as possible.
Sub-inspectors and head constables should not be allowed to stay in a particular district for more than six years and ten years respectively and in a particular police station not more than three years and five years respectively. In the Tarai area (including the Tarai and Bhabar Estates) the period of sub-inspectors, head constables and constables should not exceed five years."
20. It is contended by the petitioners that paragraph 520 of the Police Regulations does not place any restriction in the posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district. Thus, the impugned Government Order is contrary to paragraph 520 of the Police Regulations. It is further contended that there is no rational for placing such restriction, that too by means of executive fiat in the shape of a Government order, when there is no such restriction under the Act, the Rules or the Police Regulations.
21. The Government Order dated 11.7.1986 was issued in supersession of earlier Government Order dated 27.6.1983. Clause (1) thereof places restriction on postings of Inspectors and Sub Inspectors in their home districts or districts bordering their home district. Clause (5) of the said Government Order places similar restrictions qua the constables and head constables. By Government Order dated 20.3.2012, restriction regarding posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home districts was done away with, as a result thereof, the petitioners herein came to be posted in various districts bordering their home district. Now, by impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014, relaxation granted in this regard, has been withdrawn. In other words, the restriction placed in the posting of the constables and head constables vide paragraph 5 of the Government Order dated 11.7.1986 in districts bordering their home districts now stands revived.
22. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents, it is stated that the impugned Government Order has been issued on the basis of the recommendations made by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh vide its letter dated 28.5.2014. A copy of the said letter has been brought on record as Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition No.34228 of 2014 Manish Kumar Dixit and others Vs. State of U.P. and others. The letter dated 28.5.2014 by Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow is addressed to Principal Secretary, Home, U.P. Administration Lucknow. The subject matter of the letter is transfers and postings of constables and head constables in the State. It has been observed that after issuance of Government Order dated 20.3.2012, there is no restriction on posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district. It has been noted that the past experience and information received so far reveals that posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district is resulting in serious practical difficulties. The constables and head constables leave their places of posting during night, as they go to their home in the adjoining district, and are thus not available in case of emergency. This is adversely impacting the law and order in the State. It has been further noted that because of their posting in districts bordering their home district, the members of the police force generally have their relations in the same district, impacting their impartiality. They are found interfering in trivial matters, adversely affecting the image of the police department. It was concluded that the present policy of transfer and posting is thus having adverse effect on maintenance of the law and order in the State and curbing the activities of the criminals. It was suggested that the relaxation granted by Government Order dated 20.3.2012 be reviewed. The State Government accepted the recommendations made by the Director General of Police vide its letter dated 28.5.2014 by issuing Government Order dated 7.6.2014, re-imposing ban on postings of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district. Thus, clause (5) of the Government Order dated 11.6.1986 stands revived and now, constables and head constables cannot be posted in their home districts, in districts adjoining their home districts and in districts where they hold immovable properties.
23. Indisputably, the Director General of Police is the head of the police force in the State. The recommendations contained in his letter dated 28.5.2014 discloses valid reasons for making suggestion to the State Government to withdraw the relaxation granted by Government Order dated 20.3.2012. The State Government, while issuing the impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014, had rightly acted on the recommendations made by the Director General of Police. The action of the State Government taken in this regard, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary or devoid of reasons. Rather, the Court is of the opinion that the State Government was fully justified in acting on such recommendations, as maintenance of law and order should be its prime concern. No laxity, in this regard, has to be given. Consequently, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned Government Order has been issued for no justifiable reason or that it is a result of illegal and arbitrary exercise of power, cannot be accepted.
Whether State competent to issue impugned Government Order:-
24. Undoubtedly, 'Police' is a State subject as it appears at Item No.2 of list II of Seventh Schedule, which reads as 'Police (including railway and village police) subject to provisions of Entry 2-A of List 1'. Thus, it is abundantly clear that State Government is competent to legislate and amend the existing provisions regulating service conditions of the Police Force. Under Article 162 of the Constitution, the executive power of the State extends to matters with regard to which it has power to legislate. Thus, the State is also competent to issue executive orders. In the instant case, the State having chosen to exercise its executive power under Article 162 by issuing the impugned Government Order, had committed no illegality. The judgment cited by Sri B.C. Rai in the case of Jasveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (2) ADJ 484 is distinguishable. There, the action of State in transferring police constables of more than 10 years service to Armed Police was held contrary to paragraph 525 of Police Regulations and was thus struck down. The power of State to issue executive orders under Article 162 of the Constitution was not at all under consideration, and would thus be of no help to the petitioners herein.
Whether impugned Government Order is contrary to Statutory Provisions particularly paragraph 520 of Police Regulations:-
25. Now, I proceed to examine the other limb of the argument of the petitioners as to whether the Government could have provided for such restriction by issuing impugned Government Order, though there is no such embargo under the Act, the Rules and the Police Regulations.
26. Paragraph 520 of the Police Regulations places restriction on posting of police officers above the rank of constables in their home district and districts in which they own immovable property. In case of constables, their number is to be restricted as far as possible. The aforesaid restriction was placed for obvious reason. A member of Police Force, being custodian of law and order, are ordained with several such powers, which have the potentiality of impinging upon the freedom and liberty of the citizens. Such powers are ordinarily not possessed by other Government servants. In order to prevent misuse of such power, restrictions, as mentioned above, were placed by the Police Regulations, which are an exercise in subordinate legislation.
27. It may be noted that Police Act, 1861 and the regulations framed thereunder, are pre-independence legislations. With the country attaining freedom, having its own Constitution and with the development of infrastructure in the country including better transport facilities, it become easier to commute between adjoining districts within short time. As per the respondents, the experience in the recent past showed that with the withdrawal of restriction of posting of head constables and constables in district bordering their home district, they were often found missing during night, as they go to their home. In order to do away with this malady which was having adverse impact on law and order situation in the State, it was felt necessary to place certain additional restrictions, in the nature of ban on posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district.
28. This additional restriction initially placed by Government Order dated 11.6.1986 and revived by the impugned Government Order does not, in any manner, run contrary to the restrictions placed by Police Regulations, particularly paragraph 520 thereof. It only supplements the provisions under the existing legislation, which is permissible in law (Vide Joint Action Committee of Air Lines Pilots' Association of India Vs. D.G. of Civil Aviation, (2011) 5 SCC 435; Union of India Vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 4 SCC 309; District Registrar Vs. M.B. Kayakutty, (1979) 2 SCC 150). Thus, neither the exercise of power in issuing the impugned Government Order, nor the manner or the reason for which it has been exercised, can be said to be illegal, to justify interference by this Court.
Whether impugned Government Order has been issued on extraneous considerations:-
29. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the impugned Government Order has been issued as the State feels that it lost the general Lok Sabha elections held in the year 2014 because of non co-operation by the members of the police force and is thus, a result of political vendetta, the same cannot be accepted, as there is no material on record to support such plea. The imputation of motive in issuance of the impugned Government Order has been categorically denied by the State. The State had succeeded in defending its position in issuing the impugned Government Order by placing reliance on the recommendations made by the Director General of Police vide its letter dated 28.5.2014. There is no challenge in any of the writ petition to the facts stated in the said letter. Thus, it cannot be said that the impugned Government Order has its genesis in any extraneous consideration.
Effect of non-consideration of Government Order dated 25.3.1995, while issuing impugned Government Order:-
30. It is next contended that restriction on posting of police officials in districts bordering their home district placed by Government Order dated 11.6.1986, was partially withdrawn by Government Order dated 25.3.1995. A copy thereof has been filed as Annexure-4 to Writ Petition No.34228 of 2014. It relaxes restriction on posting of constables and head constables in districts bordering their home district by providing that the same will remain confined to police stations of the bordering areas and shall not apply to all police stations. It is submitted that vide letter of Director General of Police dated 27.5.2009 and 3.10.2009, directions were issued to strictly enforce the Government Order dated 25.3.1996. It is contended that while issuing impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014, the Government Order dated 25.3.1995 has been ignored. This reflects non application of mind by the Government.
31. There is a serious challenge by the State to the authenticity of the Government Order dated 25.3.1995. It is contended that similar plea was subject matter of consideration before this Court in the case of Jagannath Prasad Gaur (supra) and it was repelled by observing as under:-
"14. It is seen that the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 was issued regarding appointments and transfers of Constables, Head Constables, Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of Police. Paragraph-5 of the said Government Order provides that Head Constables and Constables shall not be posted in their home district or in districts nadjoining their home district. The Government Order dated 25th March, 1995, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners, amends paragraph-5 of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 to the extent that the Constables and the Head Constables shall not be posted in their home district or in police stations adjoining their home district. The genuineness of the said Government Order dated 25th March, 1995 was doubted in the subsequent Government Order dated 28th October, 2009 and so an inquiry was set up. It was also noticed that a proposal for not posting the Head Constables/Constables in police stations adjoining the home district was submitted in 1992 but the State Government did not accept this proposal and this decision was intimated to the Inspector General of Police, Allahabad on 27th June, 1992. The Government Order dated 28th October, 2009 thereafter mentions that the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 shall continue to operate. In such circumstances, when a decision had been taken for implementation of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 without the amendment said to have been made by the Government Order dated 25th March, 1995, it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Police Establishment Board for transfer of the Constables/Head Constables on the basis of the Government Order dated 11th July, 1986 is bad in law. This apart, no factual foundation has been laid in the writ petition as to whether the petitioners were posted in police stations adjoining the home districts or not. Thus, for this reason also, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted." (Emphasis supplied)
32. In view of what has been held in the case of Jagannath Prasad Gaur (supra), I am of the opinion that no reliance can be placed on the alleged Government Order dated 25.3.1995. Further, the Government itself vide letter dated 28.10.2009, apart from expressing doubt about authenticity of Government Order dated 25.3.1995, clarified that the restriction placed by Government Order dated 11.7.1986, shall apply without any exception. For the aforesaid reasons, it was not necessary for the Government to refer to the Government Order dated 25.3.1995, while issuing the impugned Government Order dated 7.6.2014.
Whether members of the Armed Police should be kept exempt from the bar imposed by impugned Government Order:-
33. The question which remains to be answered is whether Government was justified in applying the restrictions placed by the impugned Government Orders to the members of the Armed Police, who are not concerned with day-to-day maintenance of law and order. It is to be noted that under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, the entire police force is deemed to be one police force. To the same effect is paragraph 396 of the Police Regulations. The members of Armed Police Force can be sent to other branches of the police force and vice-versa as provided under paragraph 525 of the Police Regulations. The Armed Police is meant for dealing with serious law and order situation requiring a higher level of armed expertise. Paragraph 65 of the Police Regulations delineate the duty of the members of the Armed Police Force as protection of treasuries, tahsils and lock-ups, for the escort of treasure, prisoners and Government property, for service on magazine and quarter guards, for the suppression and prevention of disorder and crimes of violence, and for the pursuit and apprehension of dangerous criminals. Apart from normal duties as described above, they are employed during public events like processions and religious ceremonies (Paragraph 69 of the Police Regulations) and civil unrest (Paragraph 68 of the Police Regulations). Under Paragraph 71 of the Police Regulations, Armed Police can be pressed to service where civil police is unable to cope with a situation. This is in view of their specialized training in use of arms. Thus, Armed Police is integral part of the police force and provides it with muscle power to tackle special situation. The members of the Armed Police, thus, have to perform important role in case of emergencies. The conclusions which impelled the Government to bring about the impugned Government Order, as discussed in previous paragraphs of this judgment, applies with much greater force to members of the Armed Police Force and they cannot claim any immunity from the ban imposed thereby.
Whether transfers made on basis of impugned Government Order would amount to applying the Government Order retrospectively:-
34. It is to be noted that impugned Government Order was issued by way of a corrective step in the existing policy, which past experience demonstrated, was seriously flawed. Thus, it was to be implemented forthwith to achieve the object viz. strengthen the law and order situation in the State. It brook of no delay. Transferring the petitioners, who come within the ambit of the impugned Government Order, does not mean that it is being applied retrospectively. Merely because the petitioners have not completed a fixed duration at a particular place, as provided under certain Circulars/executive instructions, will not render the impugned transfers invalid. It cannot be gainsaid that members of the police force hold transferable post and they do not have any indefeasible right to be posted at a particular place for any particular duration. Provisions, in this regard, whether contained in executive instructions or Circulars, are only by way of broad guidelines, but departure therefrom will not confer any right in favour of the incumbents to get the same enforced through a court of law. If situation warrants, transfer can be made even if the period prescribed for posting at a particular place has not been completed, nor can such transfer amount to applying the impugned Government Order retrospectively. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others vs State of Bihar and others 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659, wherein, it is held as under:-
"In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with a transfer Order which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer Orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory Rule or on the ground of malafide. A Government servant holding a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer Orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer Order is passed in violation of executive instructions or Orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the Order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the Department. If the Courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer Orders issued by the Government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the Administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The High Court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer Orders."
35. The Apex Court in the case of Major General, J.K. Bansal Vs. Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 227 has cautioned the courts in interfering with transfer orders in case of members of the Armed Force. It has been held that the scope for judicial review is far more limited and narrow as compared to the civilian employees. A member of police force though not a member of Armed Force, but can also not be equated with other Government servants, as he holds a special position in the law enforcement machinery of the State. The authorities charged with duty to maintain law and order, have to be given much greater elbow space to frame polices and take decisions regarding transfers and postings of members of the police force. In State of Haryana Vs. Kashmir Singh (2010) 13 SCC 306, the Apex Court in reference to transfer of police officers observed as under:-
"12.Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the discretion of the concerned State authorities which are in the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of the situation. The concerned administrative authorities may be of the opinion that more policemen are required in any particular district and/or another range than in another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order situation and/or other considerations. These are purely administrative matters, and it is well-settled that Courts must not ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain judicial restraint vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India - AIR 1996 SC 11.
14. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great difficulties will be created for the State administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its police force from one place where there may be relative peace to another district or region/range in the State where there may be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of more police. Courts should not, in our opinion, interfere with purely administrative matters except where absolutely necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there must be some free-play of the joints provided to the executive authorities."
36. Thus, challenge laid on these grounds also fails.
Whether impugned Government Order is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution:-
37. It is contended that restrictions placed by impugned Government Order are discriminatory, as such restrictions have not been made applicable to Sub Inspectors, Inspectors, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police.
38. It is noticeable that Inspectors and Sub Inspectors are non gazetted officers of the police force like constables and head constables, while officers above Inspectors are gazetted officers governed by different set of service rules. In the counter affidavit, the specific case is that Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Service Rules, 1942 made under Section 241 and Section 275 of the Government of India Act, 1935 and their appointments are made through Public Service Commission. The transfer and posting of I.P.S. officers are governed by different Rules. Group A officer viz. Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police are not to be posted in their home range, whereas Group B officers are not to be posted in their home districts. The service condition of I.P.S. category, P.P.S. category and non-gazetted category are different to each other, thus, no claim for parity can be made under Article 14 of the Constitution.
39. It is now well settled that equals should be treated alike, while unequals should not be treated alike. While Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid classification. A three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Unikat Sankunni Menon vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1968 SC 81, while repelling the claim of higher pay to the members of Rajasthan Secretariat Services in comparison to their counterparts in Rajasthan Administrative Services held as under :-
"6. The methods of recruitment, qualifications, etc., of the two Services are not identical. In their ordinary time-scale, the two Services do not carry the same grades. Even the posts, for which recruitment in the two Services is made, are, to a major extent, different. The members of the R.S.S. are meant to be employed in the Secretariat only, while members of the R.A.S. are mostly meant for posts which are outside the Secretariat though some posts in the Secretariat can be filled by members of the R.A.S. In such a case, where appointment is made to the posts of Deputy Secretaries of government servants belonging to two different and separate Services, there can arise no question of a claim that all of them, when working as Deputy Secretaries, must receive identical salaries, or must necessarily both be given special pay. It is entirely wrong to think that every one, appointed to the same post, is entitled to claim that he must be paid identical emoluments as any other person appointed to the same post, disregarding the method of recruitment, or the source from which the Officer is drawn for appointment to that post. No such equality is required either by Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the Constitution."
40. In a more recent judgement in case of Nagaland Senior Government Employees Welfare Association vs. State of Nagaland and others (2010) 7 SCC 643, the Apex Court turned down challenge to constitutional validity of the Nagaland Recruitment from Public Employees (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, in so far as it provided for retirement from public service on completion of 35 years of service or on attaining 60 years, which ever was earlier, by holding that it is not violative of Article 14 qua similar provisions in other States, where the employees are to be superannuated only on attaining the age of 60 years. It was held as under :-
"57. Merely because some employees had to retire from public employment on completion of 35 years of service although they have not completed 55 years of age does not lead to any conclusion that the impugned enactment is arbitrary, irrational, unfair and unconstitutional. The fact that the provision such as the impugned provision that allows the retirement from public employment at the age of 35 years' service is not to be found in other States is of no relevance. As a matter of fact, retirement policy concerning public employment differs from State to State. Kerala retires employees from the public employment at the age of 55 years. In any case there is nothing wrong if the legislation provides for retirement of the government employees based on maximum length of service or on attaining a particular age, wherever is earlier, if the prescribed length of service or age is not irrational."
41. Thus, the petitioners cannot set up plea of discrimination qua the gazetted officers of the police force.
42. So far as other non-gazetted officers of the police force are concerned, i.e. Inspectors and Sub Inspectors, similar restrictions on their posting in bordering districts is in place, vide paragraph 1 of the Government Order dated 11.7.1986. In case of constables and head constables, such restriction was relaxed by Government Order dated 20.3.2012, but it was never relaxed in case of Inspectors and Sub Inspectors. They were never permitted to be posted in districts bordering their home district. Thus, plea of discrimination and violation of Article 14 is also not tenable.
Individual Hardship:-
43. As regards individual hardship to the petitioners and members of their families, it is now well settled that remedy for the same is to represent to the authorities. However, that cannot be a ground for the writ-court to interfere. Accordingly, in cases of hardship to the incumbent or members of his family, it shall be open to him to make representation to the Regional Police Establishment Board, on whose recommendations, transfer has been made. In the event, any such representation is made, the Board shall examine the same with all sympathy, as it is also its duty to mitigate the hardship of the members of the police force, which is necessary to strike a balance between public duty and personal interest. Such exercise shall be carried out within one month from the date representation is made. In case of demonstrated undue hardship, it shall be open to the Board to amend/modify the transfer order or pass such order which, it deems appropriate.
44. Subject to above liberty, writ petitions stand dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :12.12.2014 SL