Yogendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Petitioner, who is a police personnel, has sought the quashing of the transfer order for the reason that the decision to transfer has been taken by a Board which has not been constituted in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors,

This issue was examined by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1837 of 2010 (State of U.P. and Ors., v. 1155/379 C.P. Ravindra Singh and Ors.,) with other connected Special Appeals and by the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2011 the Special Appeal was allowed with the following observations:

According to us, pluralistic view in the place and instead of singular view is one of the devices to maintain transparency. It avoids possibilities of motivated action, biasness or influence in the cases of transfer. To that extent, there is no conflict between Prakash Singh (supra) and the steps taken by the State. The only issue is whether the State has strictly complied with or sufficiently complied with the direction of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra). According to the Full Bench of this High Court in Vinod Kumar (supra), direction has been sufficiently complied with. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has given an explanation by saying that the position of the State of Uttar Pradesh as regards its vastness and population may not be similar with various other States. Therefore, if the Board is constituted strictly in compliance with the direction of the Supreme Court then the State will not get full time engagement of such officers to maintain the law and order situation of the State. To that, it is desirable that the State should explain such position before the Supreme Court. It is expected that by now it has been done by the State. But so far as the existing position is concerned, this Division Bench will be governed by both, Prakash Singh (supra) and Vinod Kumar (supra) and a conjoint reading of both the Judgments speaks that a mode or mechanism of plurality has been adopted by the State, in spite of the existing law. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to negate the orders of transfer, as were impugned in the writ petition.

Thus, in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of transfer. Hence, all the aforesaid special appeals are allowed upon setting aside the orders, impugned therein, passed by the learned Single Judge.

However, no order is passed as to costs.

Thus, even though the decision to transfer the Petitioner may not have been taken by the Board constituted strictly in accordance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh (supra), but for the reasons stated in the aforesaid judgment rendered in Ravindra Singh (supra) it is not possible for the Court to interfere with the transfer order .

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.