Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard.

2. Shri Shukla, learned Standing Counsel submits on the basis of instructions that only for 6 months the petitioner has been attached to Moradabad as the compassionate appointment proposed at the said place has got delayed, though the same is expected to be made within 1 month.

3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is actuated by malice, but, as the person against whom it is being alleged has not been arrayed in the writ petition in person, therefore the Court declines to consider this aspect.

4. The permissibility of such transfer of Group D employees in view of Rule 21 (3) of the U.P. Police Group D Employees Service Rules 2009 fell for consideration before this Court in writ petition Nos. 3800 (SS) of 2015 as also 6525 (SS) of 2015 wherein after considering the amendment of 2014 the Court found that Group D employees appointed to a post for a particular district or the P.A.C. Battalion or Unit shall not be transferred to any other establishment in normal course. Under special circumstances i.e. administrative ground or self request a Group ‘D’ employee may be transferred by competent Police Establish