The authority of the Director, Traffic/Inspector General of Police for transfers and repatriation, and the relevance of the petitioner's initial cadre in determining the jurisdiction of transfer.

( 1 ) THESE are three connected writ petitions involving same question and based on same facts, therefore, they are being taken together and the being decided by a common judgment. Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 49064 of 2004 is being treated as leading case.

( 2 ) BY means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 8. 11. 2004 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Traffic Police, Ghaziabad to provincial Armed Constabulary (P. A. C.), Headquarters Lucknow.

( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he is working in the Traffic Police posted at Ghaziabad as such the Inspector General of Police/director, Traffic, Uttar Pradesh is not the competent authority to transfer the petitioner out of his parent cadre. It has also been submitted that the impugned order of transfer is without jurisdiction, as such, the same is void. From the perusal of the order of transfer, it is clear that the petitioner has been transferred out of his parent cadre without any administrative exigency or public interest as such the order of transfer itself reveals the arbitrariness if passing the order as such the same is liable to be quashed. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the year 1981 and after completion of his graduation the petitioner was promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 1988 and after qualifying the necessary examination, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Sub-Inspector in the year 1993 and thereafter the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector district Ghazipur in the year 1994. In the year. 1999, the Inspector General of Police Traffic published a memorandum for Traffic Inspector in the Traffic Police for Sub-Inspectors who qualify necessary qualifications like less than 40 years of age and have completed three years in armed police as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner along with others applied for Traffic sub-Inspector and, after qualifying interview, was selected among 51 selected Sub-Inspectors in 125 candidates. Then the petitioner was sent for Traffic Training at Armed Training Centre and then the petitioner was posted as Traffic Sub-Inspector in the year 1999 at Allahabad and then transferred to various places and in the year 2001, the petitioner was transferred to Ghaziabad as traffic Sub-Inspector. An order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Traffic Police, Ghaziabad to Provincial Armed Constabulary (P. A. C.), head Quarters Lucknow. The petitioner states that the said order of transfer is illegal and without jurisdiction. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was duly appointed Sub-Inspector of district Police Cadre and as such he is entitle to be transferred within the State as per administrative exigencies from one district to another within the parent cadre. But when the respondents wanted to transfer him out of his cadre picked up the petitioner, no option was taken by the respondents prior to passing the impugned order of transfer nor ever took his consent. It has been submitted that the cadre of the petitioner is different than the cadre of P. A. C. hence the petitioner has been transferred to an ex-cadre post, which is impermissible in law. As cadre is defined in Fundamental Rule 9 (1) of the Financial Hand Book, Volume-II, Para-6 to meaning "the strength of service of part of service sanctioned as separate unit". In view of the said expression, the District Executive Force and Provincial Armed Constabulary (P. A. C.) are two distinct and separate cadres for units and if at point of time under the cadre of administrative exigency, transfer of persons from District Executive Force to Provincial Armed Constabulary is required the -same cannot be done without obtaining the willingness or consent of the person concerned. The impugn