# State Of U.P. & Ors v. Jagroop Singh & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 628 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-02-05 - **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-jagroop-singh-ors-43494 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Vijay Gautam Disciplinary Proceedings - Transfer of police person nel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the age of 50 years in the case of Head Constables and 45 years in the case of Constables, in accordance with the governing administrative policy. Procedure under Rule - Transfer effected in terms of the administrative policy dated 06.06.2001 and the consequential transfer order dated 25.05.2015 issued by the competent authority. Penal Sections - Not applicable, the matter pertaining exclusively to service jurisprudence. List of Cases Cited - Vishnu Kant Jha and Others vs. State of U.P.; Pati Ram Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P.; Surya Nath Singh and Others vs. State of U.P.; Birendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Head Note - Transfer of police personnel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the prescribed age of 50 years in respect of Head Constables and 45 years in respect of Constables, in furtherance of a duly formulated administrative policy, is legally valid. Judicial interference in matters of internal administration is impermissible in the absence of manifest illegality. The order of the learned Single Judge interfering with the transfer was held to be unsustainable in law. Facts - 3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Jagroop Singh & Ors. 629 The respondents were serving as Head Constables in the Traffic Police, District Kanpur Dehat. An administrative directive dated 25.05.2015 was issued by the Additional Director General / Director (Traffic). By the said directive, Head Constables who had completed the age of 50 years and Constables who had completed the age of 45 years were directed to be transferred from the Traffic Police The transfer was effected in pursuance of the prevailing administrative policy. Aggrieved by the said transfer orders, the respondents filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judg The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer orders. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred the present Special Appeal. Contentions - On behalf of the Respondents: The impugned transfer orders were arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Vishnu Kant Jha and Pati Ram Yadav. The communication issued by the Traffic Directorate dated 07.06.2012 was challenged as being without jurisdiction. It was contended that removal from Traffic Police solely on the ground of age was illegal. On behalf of the State: The transfer orders were passed purely on administrative grounds. The transfers were made in strict compliance with the administrative policy dated 06.06.2001. The policy expressly prohibits continuance of police personnel in the Traffic Police beyond the prescribed age limit. Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Birendra Singh vs. State of U.P. It was submitted that police personnel have no vested right to remain posted in the Traffic Police. Analysis - The Court examined the judgment in Vishnu Kant Jha and found that the transfer order had not been quashed and only liberty to submit a representation had been granted. The Court observed that in Pati Ram Yadav, the transfer order was quashed without consideration of the binding Division Bench judgment in Birendra Singh. The Division Bench in Birendra Singh had categorically held that police personnel cannot continue in the Traffic Police beyond the prescribed age. The Court held that the Traffic Police is an integral part of the State Police Force. Under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, the entire police establishment is deemed to be one unified force. Members of the police force, being part of a uniformed service, are liable to be transferred as per administrative exigencies. Judicial interference in matters of internal administration is impermissible unless vitiated by patent illegality, arbitrariness or malafides. The transfer order dated 25.05.2015 was held to be a valid and law ## Text 628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in [(2014) 1 UPLBEC 379], decided on 09.12.2013. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Special Appeal Defective NO. - 60 OF 2016 State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Jagroop Singh & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Piyush Shukla Counsel for the Respondents: Vijay Gautam Disciplinary Proceedings - Transfer of police person nel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the age of 50 years in the case of Head Constables and 45 years in the case of Constables, in accordance with the governing administrative policy. Procedure under Rule - Transfer effected in terms of the administrative policy dated 06.06.2001 and the consequential transfer order dated 25.05.2015 issued by the competent authority. Penal Sections - Not applicable, the matter pertaining exclusively to service jurisprudence. List of Cases Cited - Vishnu Kant Jha and Others vs. State of U.P.; Pati Ram Yadav and Others vs. State of U.P.; Surya Nath Singh and Others vs. State of U.P.; Birendra Singh vs. State of U.P. Head Note - Transfer of police personnel from the Traffic Police upon attainment of the prescribed age of 50 years in respect of Head Constables and 45 years in respect of Constables, in furtherance of a duly formulated administrative policy, is legally valid. Judicial interference in matters of internal administration is impermissible in the absence of manifest illegality. The order of the learned Single Judge interfering with the transfer was held to be unsustainable in law. Facts - 3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Jagroop Singh & Ors. 629 The respondents were serving as Head Constables in the Traffic Police, District Kanpur Dehat. An administrative directive dated 25.05.2015 was issued by the Additional Director General / Director (Traffic). By the said directive, Head Constables who had completed the age of 50 years and Constables who had completed the age of 45 years were directed to be transferred from the Traffic Police The transfer was effected in pursuance of the prevailing administrative policy. Aggrieved by the said transfer orders, the respondents filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judg The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the transfer orders. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State of Uttar Pradesh preferred the present Special Appeal. Contentions - On behalf of the Respondents: The impugned transfer orders were arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Vishnu Kant Jha and Pati Ram Yadav. The communication issued by the Traffic Directorate dated 07.06.2012 was challenged as being without jurisdiction. It was contended that removal from Traffic Police solely on the ground of age was illegal. On behalf of the State: The transfer orders were passed purely on administrative grounds. The transfers were made in strict compliance with the administrative policy dated 06.06.2001. The policy expressly prohibits continuance of police personnel in the Traffic Police beyond the prescribed age limit. Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench judgment in Birendra Singh vs. State of U.P. It was submitted that police personnel have no vested right to remain posted in the Traffic Police. Analysis - The Court examined the judgment in Vishnu Kant Jha and found that the transfer order had not been quashed and only liberty to submit a representation had been granted. The Court observed that in Pati Ram Yadav, the transfer order was quashed without consideration of the binding Division Bench judgment in Birendra Singh. The Division Bench in Birendra Singh had categorically held that police personnel cannot continue in the Traffic Police beyond the prescribed age. The Court held that the Traffic Police is an integral part of the State Police Force. Under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, the entire police establishment is deemed to be one unified force. Members of the police force, being part of a uniformed service, are liable to be transferred as per administrative exigencies. Judicial interference in matters of internal administration is impermissible unless vitiated by patent illegality, arbitrariness or malafides. The transfer order dated 25.05.2015 was held to be a valid and lawful exercise of administrative power. Conclusion - The Special Appeal was allowed. The judgment and order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondents stood dismissed. The impugned transfer orders were upheld as valid and lawful. There was no order as to costs. The delay of 200 days in filing the Special Appeal was condoned. 630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr D Y Chandrachud, C.J.) 1. The special appeal seeks to challenge a decision of the learned Single Judge dated 5 June 2015. The respondents are Head Constables and are posted in the Traffic Police in district Kanpur Dehat. On 25 May 2015, they were transferred from the traffic police on the ground that they have completed the age of 50 years. Accordingly, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Additional Director General / Director (Traffic), they were sought to be transferred on the ground that they had completed either 50 years of age as Head Constable or, as the case may be, 45 years of age as Traffic Constables. The order of transfer was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of transfer by following two decisions of learned Single Judges in (i) Vishnu Kant Jha and Ors. vs. State of UP1 and (ii) Pati Ram Yadav and Ors. vs. State of UP2. 2. The learned Single Judge in the first case held that there was no illegality in the order of transfer passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police. Dealing with the submission that the order of transfer had been passed on the ground that the petitioners had completed 50 years of age and for which reason they had been shifted from the Traffic Police, the learned Single Judge left it open to them to file a representation to the competent authority. 3. In the second decision, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the letter of the Traffic Directorate dated 7 June 2012 to the effect that Head Constables above the age of 50 years and Constables above the age of 45 years would not be allowed to continue in the traffic police was unsustainable, without authority of law and was without jurisdiction. The earlier decision was followed by setting aside the order of transfer. 4. As we have noted earlier in the first decision in Vishnu Kant Jha (supra), the order of transfer had not been set aside and only an opportunity had been granted to the petitioners to submit a representation to the competent authority. However, in Pati Ram Yadav (supra), the learned Single Judge went a step further and quashed the order of transfer. We also note that a similar view has been taken by another learned Single Judge of this Court in Surya Nath Singh and Ors. vs. The State of UP3 and in other decisions. Evidently, in taking the view that the learned Single Judges did in the decision in Vishnu Kant Jha (supra) and later in Pati Ram Yadav (supra), a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Birendra Singh vs. State of UP4 was not noticed. We extract below the judgment of the Division Bench: "The petitioners-appellants have been transferred from traffic police to armed police on the ground that they have crossed the age of 50 years. This has been done pursuant to the policy decision dated 06-06-2001, which provides that no person shall be posted in traffic police after the age of 50 years. Earlier this age limit was 45 years. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the policy decision dated 06-06-2001 has been misinterpreted and consequently mis-applied. He submits that according to him only posting in traffic police after attaining the age of 50 years is 3 All. State Of U.P. & Ors. Vs Jagroop Singh & Ors. 631 prohibited. According to his interpretation if a person has been appointed/transferred to traffic police before the age of 50 years he can continue there till superannuation. This kind of interpretation of the policy dated 6th June, 2001 is not logical and therefore not acceptable. There is no logic in holding that a person, who has been posted to Traffic Police at the age of 49 years can continue there till the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years, whereas a person who is aged above 50 years cannot be posted to Traffic Police. The writ Court cannot interfere in policy matters, that too by an illogical interpretation of a policy. There is no merit in this appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed." 5. We are in respectful agreement with the view which has been taken by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. Traffic police is an integral part of the police department in the State. Services are transferable from one to the other. 6. Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 provides that the entire police establishment under a State Government shall for the purpose of the Act be deemed to be one police force and shall be formally enrolled and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner as shall from time to time be ordered by the State Government. 7. Basically, issues of assignment of employees between the traffic department and other departments of the police are matters of administrative exigency. In such matters, the powers of the Court have to be wielded with caution and circumspection. The Court is not justified in interfering with matters of internal administration. No person has a vested right to continue in the traffic police. Members of the police force are not immune from internal postings and transfers. They belong to a uniformed force and must abide by its discipline and norms. The Courts should not encourage needless recourse to litigation which obstructs the even flow of work and administration. 8. On 25 May 2015, an administrative instruction was issued by the Additional Director General / Director (Traffic) for the transfer of those Head Constables who had completed 50 years of age and of Constables of 45 years of age from the traffic police. This is a pure matter of administrative policy with which the Court ought not to interfere. 9. Hence, we come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5 June 2015 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the orders of transfer of the respondents cannot be sustained. 10. The special appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The writ petition filed by the respondents shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. A copy of this order be placed on the record of the writ petition. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. 632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES -------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.02.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J. THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J. Special Appeal Defective No. - 70 Of 2016 State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Rahul ...Respondent Counsel for the Appellants: Shri Piyush Shukla Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Vinod Kumar Singh Proceedings Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 September 2015. The Single Judge directed issuance of an appointment order to the respondent after constituting a court-appointed medical board. Division Bench considered legality of the Single Judge's intervention in the recruitment process. Appeal allowed; writ petition dismissed. Procedure Respondent applied for recruitment to the Civil Police/PAC under advertisement dated 14 May 2013. Underwent District Medical Board examination → declared medically unfit (flat foot). Filed appeal before Review Medical Board → again declared unfit. Filed representation on 08 April 2015; no allegation of corruption made at this stage. Filed writ petition raising new allegations of demand of illegal gratification and claimed the medical report was "fake." Single Judge ordered fresh medical examination by a three-member board of Motilal Nehru Medical College. Based on its report, the Single Judge directed appointment. State challenged the order through special appeal. Sections No penal sections invoked. The matter concerns service recruitment, governed by statutory rules (Rule 13, U.P. (Civil Police) Constable & Head Constable Service Rules, 2008). Case Law Cited