Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—These writ petitions raise common questions relating to the transfer of police personnel from civil police to armed police and their repatriation. The controversy centers around Regulation 525 of the U.P. Police Regulations which is quoted hereinbelow :

“Constable of less than two years’ service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed to the civil police or viceversa. Foot police constable may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request. Any civil police constable of more than two and less than ten years’ service may be transferred to the armed police and viceversa by the Superintendent for a period not exceeding six months in any one year. All armed police constables of over two years’ service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years’ service may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General.

In all other cases the transfer of police officers from one branch of the force to another or from police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires the sanction of the Inspector General.”

2. The power of transfer is contained in detail in Chapter XXXIV of the said regulations. The controversy has arisen on account of certain orders being passed, which most of the petitioners herein alleged to be discriminatory. Their allegation is, that even though they are entitled to be repatriated from armed police to civil police, yet. they are being continued beyond the period prescribed under the aforesaid Regulations. The other variety of allegations are that the petitioners have completed their requisite period of service in civil police and, therefore, they now cannot be transferred. They do not deserve to be retained in the armed police force. This Court had heard the matter on an earlier occasion and an order was passed by me on 25th of April, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 21713 of 2006 calling upon the State Government and its authorities to take a decision to uniformly implement the aforesaid Regulations without any element of discrimination. The aforesaid order was particularly brought to the notice of the authorities and according to the learned Chief Standing Counsel Shri C.B. Yadav, the authorities have decided to strictly implement the provisions of Chapter 34 of the said Regulations and Regulation 525 in particular.

3. It would be appropriate to refer to the two D. O. letters dated 25.4.1985 and 29.8.1986 which are part of my order dated 25.4.2006. The limitations which have been prescribed by the aforesaid letters issued by the I.G. of Police, are guidelines for the authorities to be taken note of while implementing Regulation 525. It appears that the aforesaid letters are either not being implemented or orders are being passed without taking notice of them. The petitions, at hand, clearly reveal that most of the petitioners were entitled to be repatriated to civil police on account of their having completed the requisite period of service as contemplated under the Regulations. However, the respondents have expressed concern on account of non-availability of adequate number of constables in the armed police. It is stated that according to the Regulations no post of armed police should be left vacant. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has, in particular, reiterated the provisions of Chapter VII of the Police Regulations. Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, it is urged by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that at times when the numbers of armed constabulary is short, it is not possible and practicable to repatriate the armed police personnel to civil police, even though they have completed the requisite period provided under Regulation 525. However, Shri Yadav, learned Chief Standing Counsel asserts that as per directions of this Court dated 25.4.2006 the matter was delved upon and instructions have been received that the authorities shall now, henceforth, strictl