Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of three writ petitions, which raise common question of facts and law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners who are recruited as Police Constable (Civil) by the respondents on different dates have challenged their transfer order transferring them from civil police to armed police and according to the statement made by the petitioner, the same is in contravention of Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations and cannot be done therefore, the order deserve to be quashed. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the provisions of Regulation 525, only those Constables of Civil Police can be transferred to Armed Police who have to their credit more than two years’ and less than ten years’ service with the prior permission of Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that meaning thereby the Civil Police Constable who has completed 10 years service cannot be transferred to armed police and any transfer contrary to the provisions of Regulation 525 is bad in law, arbitrary and illegal apart from being malafide.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon number of decisions of this Court. One of them is passed by Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44898 of 2006 decided on 25th August, 2006 wherein the Court relying upon the provisions of Regulation 525 has been pleased to allow the writ petition quashing the transfer order. The similar view is taken by Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54074 of 2006 decided on 27th September, 2006 and decision of Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J. reported in (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2038; CN 141 C.P. Kaushlesh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J. rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21713 of 2006, Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of U.P. and others. After placing the aforesaid decisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that being in the coordinate Bench of single Judge, should follow the decision of this Court delivered earlier in the cases referred to above, or in case, this Court do not agree, may refer the matter to the larger Bench.

4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since the Apex Court in its recent decision reported in 2007 (1) SCC (sic) has held that the Government orders are issued for the guidance of the subordinate authorities. These are binding on the authorities but violation thereof cannot give any right to the petitioner to challenge it before the Court of law as the Government Orders are not enforceable through Court of law. On a query put by the Court as to whether the provisions of Regulation 525 have any statutory force, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these have statutory force.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the directions issued by this Court in an earlier decision wherein this Court issued directions to the State Government to clarify the position regarding the provisions of Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations.

6. On this, respondents have again placed a Government Order whereby the respondents have directed the authorities to comply with the directions issued in Regulation 525 without any discrimination.

7. In this view of the matter learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.

8. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulation and I should follow the decision of the learned single Judge referred to above.

9. Since the controversy stands covered by the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in its recent decision, I do not find it to be a fit case for reference to a larger Bench.

10. That during the preparation of the judgment, learned Standing Counsel has brought to my notice a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and oth