LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-59

VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On August 18, 2010
VINOD KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing the conflict of views in two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Shishu Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2010 3 ADJ 241 and Anr. in Special Appeal No. 850 of 2010 State of U.P. and Ors. v. Jagannath Prasad Gaur and Ors. decided on 28.5.2010, in the matter of transfer of Constables and Head Constables and the interpretation of the U.P. (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 2008'), the matter was referred to a Full Bench by order dated 14th of July, 2010, to answer the following issue:

(2.) In paragraph 31 of Prakash Singh (supra), the Supreme Court was pleased to direct as under: "In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following direction to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations. One of the directions was the establishment of the Police Establishment Board, being direction No. 5, which reads as follows:

(3.) In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69798 of 2009: Shishu Pal Singh (supra), the learned Single Judge, in respect to the challenge of transfer order dated 10.11.2009 and relieving order dated 08.12.2009, noted the contention on behalf of the writ petitioner that the transfer order had been passed without approval of the Police Establishment Board or even the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that for various personnel of the police department, various Police Establishment Boards have been established and the Director General of the Police is the Chairman of the Police Establishment Boards relating to police personnel other than Head Constable and Constable. The learned Single Judge was pleased to note that the transfer was effected after approval of the Police Establishment Board and, therefore, was pleased to dismiss the writ petition.