Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioner who is a Sub-Inspector (Special Category) in U.P. Police has challenged the order dated 16.9.2009 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad transferring him from district Gautam Budh Nagar to Mau in public interest with the approval of Police Establishment Board.

2. On behalf of the petitioner a supplementary affidavit and then a second supplementary affidavit has been filed. Learned Standing Counsel was earlier allowed time to obtain instructions and to file counter affidavit. A counter affidavit as well as a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5 and respondent No. 7 to which even rejoinder affidavit has been filed. The counsel for the parties as such agree for final disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, having heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents at length, I proceed to decide the matter finally.

3. Before addressing various points which have been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in order to assail the impugned order, it is tride to mention that under the service jurisprudence transfer of an employee who holds a transferable post is a normal feature and has been recognised throughout as an incident of service. In the matter of the transfer, the Government/employer has a wide discretion and it is the employer who is the best judge to utilise the service of its employee and to place and post him at its discretion accordingly. The employee has no legal say in the matter of his posting except to bring to the notice of the authority concerned his personal difficulty or any hardship. The employee as such, has no vested right either to insist for a particular post or to be posted at a particular place or to stick to a particular one. In fact, transfer has been considered necessary in public interest and to maintain efficiency in public administration. Therefore, it has been settled by a catena of authorities that ordinarily transfer orders are not to be interfered with on the judicial side until and unless it is shown that the order of transfer passed is without jurisdiction; is in breach of any statutory rule or it has been motivated by malice of fact or law or is proved to be punitive, vindictive or stigmatic in nature.

4. It is in the above settled legal background that I have to examine the validity of the impugned order.

5. The first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Police Establishment Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) which had granted approval to the transfer is not properly constituted as per the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1 and, as such, there is no approval by the Board and the order of transfer stands vitiated. The only defect pointed out in the constitution of the Board is that the Director General of Police is not the Chairman of the Board as it is headed by the Inspector General of Police (Establishment).

6. In reply to this argument, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in the case of Prakash Singh (supra) the Apex Court has merely issued guidelines for the better administration of the Police Force and one of the guidelines provides for establishment of a Police Establishment Board in each State for the purpose of transfer, posting and promotion and other matters relating to the services of the officers of the Police Force. In pursuance of the guidelines so issued by the Supreme Court, the Principal Secretary, U.P. Government vide letter dated 12.3.2008 notified six different Boards for supervising transfer, posting, promotion and other service related matters of the police department depending upon the category of officers. The Board in respect to the officers of the Police Force