- (1.) The special appeal seeks to challenge a decision of the learned Single Judge dated 5.6.2015. The respondents are Head Constables and are posted in the Traffic Police in district Kanpur Dehat. On 25.5.2015, 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. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 41528 of 2013, decided on 31.10.2013 and (ii) Pati Ram Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 41528 of 2013, decided on 10.12.2013. 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.
(2.) In the second decision, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the letter of the Traffic Directorate dated 7.6.2012 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.
(3.) As we have noted earlier in the first decision in Vishnu Kant Jha , 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 , 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. v. The State of U.P., Service Single No. 8969 of 2011, decided on 3.12.2012, and in other decisions. Evidently, in taking the view that the learned Single Judges did in the decision in Vishnu Kant Jha and later in Pati Ram Yadav , a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Birendra Singh v. State of U.P., Special Appeal No. 2453 of 2011, decided on 13.3.2013 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 6.6.2001, 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 6.6.2001 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 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 6.6.2001 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.";