Advocates:
['SHEIKH MOAZZAM INAM', '', 'GYANENDRA KUMAR SAINI', 'C S C']

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1868 of 2022

Petitioner :- Dalmender Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheikh Moazzam Inam,Gyanendra

Kumar Saini

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.

Heard Mr. Sheikh Moazzam Inam, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-

respondents.

This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following

relief:-

"I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the

impugned order dated 07.07.2021 as well as consequential order dated

08.07.2021.

II. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus further

directed to the respondent to restore the petitioner on the post of

Provincial Armed Constabulary, Constable in 8th Provincial Armed

Constabulary, Bareilly and further directed to the respondent no.2 to

decide the representation of the petitioner dated 12.07.2021."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,

who was working on the post of Constable, has been transferred

from Bareilly to Gautam Buddh Nagar by the impugned order

dated 07.07.2021 and he has also been relieved on the next date,

i.e. 08.07.2021. He further submits that the impugned transfer

order has been passed without considering the grievance of the

petitioner as well as ignoring the relevant Government Order

and Transfer Policy. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that he has joined at the transferred place, however,

there is no averment in this respect in the petition. For redressal

of his grievances, the petitioner has filed a representation dated

12.07.2021 before the respondent no.2 but no decision has been

taken till date, hence the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the

transfer order has been made on administrative grounds, hence,

there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

However, in case, afresh representation is moved by petitioner

for redressal of his grievance, the same shall be decided in

accordance with law.

It is a well settled law that violation of transfer policy does not

give any vested right to the petitioner to challenge the said

order. The transfer policy, Government orders etc. are binding

on the Government and its employees and it cannot be enforced

under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made

to the judgment in the case of Union of India and others v.

S.L. Abbas reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357, which has been

consistently followed by the Supreme Court and this Court.

In the case of Dharmendra Kumar Saxena v. State of U.P. and

others reported in 2013 (7) ADJ 53, wherein this Court has held

that guidelines and the Government orders are binding on the

Government and its employees. Relevant part of the judgment

is extracted herein below: -

"24...the Government is bound by executive orders/policies. The

guidelines are made to follow it and not to breach it without any

justifiable reasons. Whenever the Government deviates from its

policies/guidelines/ executive instructions, there must be cogent and

strong reasons to justify the order; when transfer order is challenged by

way of representation, there must be material on record to establish that

the decision was in public interest and it does not violate any statutory

provision, otherwise the order may be struck down as being arbitrary and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The authorities cannot justify

their orders that breach of executive orders do not give legally enforceable

right to aggrieved person. As observed by Justice Frankfurter "An

executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it

professes its action to be judged".

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without

going into the merits of the case and with the consent of the

parties, the writ petit