D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The order dated 27th May 1997, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. In the said order the petitioner who is Head constable, was transferred from Traffic department to Armed Police with immediate effect by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi. The said order has been assailed by Sri Tejpal learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the Senior Superintendent of Police do net have any power to transfer a Police personnel from Civil Police to other branch of the force. Secondly, he contends that the Head constable can never be transferred from the Civil Police to Armed force- His third contention is that the petitioner is a Head constable, would be entitled to further promotion in the Traffic department in a period shorter than that he would be getting if he is sent to the Armed force. Therefore the said order of transfer would result in penal consequences. He next contends that by reason of the orders framed by the Inspector General of Police, under Section 12 of the Police Act, having statutory force and such rules having been framed, extract whereof is contained in Annexure '4' of the writ petition, the same is binding on the respondents and by reason of specific provision contained therein the petitioner is entitled to continue atleast for three years in the Traffic department from the date of his induction in the said department.
(2.) The last contention of Sri Tejpal learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner can be removed from the Traffic department either on his own choice or on the ground of unsuitability. But in the present case the petitioner has not been removed from the Traffic department on the ground of unsuitability On these grounds the impugned order of transfer is bad. He also contends that once he is removed from the Traffic department he cannot be reinducted because of the provisions contained in the said order. For all these reasons the impugned order should be quashed.
(3.) Learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the other hand contends that the said rule do not have any statutory force and it is only guideline. He secondly contends that the petitioner cannot claim any right to remain in the Traffic department, particularly when there is no vacancy on the post of Head constable in the said department. He points out from the impugned order itself that there being two posts, four Head constables having been sought to be posted against two sanctioned posts, it was not possible to accommodate the petitioner. Therefore, he has been sought to be removed. According to him the Senior Superintendent of Police is competent to post him in the Armed Police. He has opposed the said contention of Sri Tejpal.;