SURENDRA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Nishant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner claims to be an Inspector of police at present posted within the district of Sonebhadra in the State of U.P. He is aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3 i.e., Inspector General of Police (Establishment) in the office of Director General of Police, Lucknow.

(2.) Sri Nishant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same is in supersession of the directions issued by the State Government by the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 and as such is liable to be set aside. He also claims discrimination against the petitioner and states that the impugned order is illegal. Learned Counsel has submitted that if the order passed by the respondent No. 3 is in violation of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 the same requires to be set aside inasmuch as the petitioner who is an Inspector of Police will face humiliation if he is compelled to work in a Police Station under an officer junior to him and of the rank of Sub-Inspector of police. He has further stated that by the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 the respondent No. 3 has illegally directed the District Police Authorities to adopt the practice prevailing prior to the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 for the posting and appointment of Inspectors.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in several writ petitions, interim orders have been passed by the Court holding prima facie that the impugned order is in supersession of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008. He refers to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 39853 of 2010, Vijay Mall Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others. A perusal of the said interim order dated 12.7.2010 indicates that as an interim measure stay order was granted and the State Counsel was required to file counter-affidavit.