STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERSversusKASHMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

                        [2010] 11 S.C.R. 900


A              STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
                                  V.
           KASHMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.
              (Civil Appeal No. 8690-8701 of 2010)
                        OCTOBER 06, 2010
B
         [MARKANDf:Y KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.J

        Service Law:

C       Punjab Police Rules, 1934 - r. 1.5 - Limits of jurisdiction
  and liability to transfer - Transfer orders of various police
  personnel of various grades from one district/range to another
  - Challenge to - Transfer orders quashed by High Court -
  On appeal, held: Police establishment of a State constitutes
  one police force and its members are liable to be posted
D anywhere in the State - Transfer can be done from one district!
  range to another and there is no absolute prohibition for doing
  so - Transfer/posting of policemen should be left to the
  discretion of the State Authorities - Th'ey are the best to
  assess the necessities of the administrative requirements of
E the situation - Transfer being an incidence of service and
  purely administrative matters, cowts should be very reluctant
  to interfere in transfer orders as long as they are not clearly
  illegal - Courts should maintain judicial restraint - Thus, order
  of High Court set aside - Judicial restraint - Administrative
F Jaw - Indian Police Act, 1861 - ss. 2 and 4.
        The respondents-Constables, Head Constables,
    Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors
    and Sub-Inspectors, serving in various districts in the
G   State of Haryana were ordered to be transferred to other
    districts and ranges. The respondents challenged the
    transfer orders. The Division Bench of the High Court
    quashed the transfer orders. Therefore, the appellants-
    State filed the instant appeals.
H
                               900
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. KASHMIR SINGH 901
            AND ANOTHER ETC.
    Allowing the appeals, the Court                         A
     HELD: 1. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the
Indian Police Act, 1861 clearly shows that the entire police
establishment under the State Government is one
integrated police force, though for better administration
                                                             8
the State has been sub-divided into districts/ranges. Rule
1.5 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 clearly shows that
police officers constitute one police force and are liable
to be posted anywhere in the State. Moreover, Rule 1.5
also clearly .states that no sub-division of the force
territorially or by classes, affects this principle. A plain C
perusal of the shows that transfer can be done from one
district to another district or even to another range, and
there is no absolute prohibition for doing so. However,
in such a case, the seniority of Constables and Head
Constables at the district level and of ASls and Sis at the D
range level is maintained in the parent district/range
despite the transfer. Promotion/confirmation is also given
strictly as per the seniority in the parent district/range
level, as per Memo No. 43515-22/E-(lll) dated 10.8.2010.
[Paras 12 and 13] [906-F-H; 907-A-B]                         E

     2.1 Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and
the courts should be very relur mt to interfere in transfer
orders as long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular,
transfer and postings of policemen must be left in the F
discretion of the concerned State Authorities which are
in the best position to assess the necessities of the
administrative requirements of the situation. The
concerned administrative authorities may be of the
opinion that more policemen are required in any G
particular district and/or range than in another,
depending upon their assessment of the law and order
situation and/or other considerations. These are purely
administrative matters, and the courts must not ordinarily

                                                            H
    902      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A   interfere in administrative matters and should maintain
    judicial restraint. (Para 14) (907-C-E]

          2.2,The High Court took a totally impractical view of
    the matter. If the view of the High Court is to prevail, great
    difficulties would be created for the State administration
B
    since it would not be able to transfer/deploy its police
    force from one place where there might be relative peace
    to another district or region/range in the State where
    there might be disturbed law and order situation and thus,
    the requirement of more police. The courts should not
C   interfere with purely administrative matters except where
    it is absolutely necessary on account of violation of any
    fundamental or other legal right of the citizen. After all, the
    State administration cannot function with its hands tied
    by judiciary behind its back. There must be some free-
D   play of the joints provided to the executive authorities.
    [Para 16) (908-C-E]

          Tata Cellular vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 - relied
    on.
E
         Jawaharlal Nehru University vs. Dr. K. S. Jawatkar and
    Ors. (1998) Suppl. 1 SCC 679; G. Varandani vs. Kurukshetra
    University and Anr. (2003) 10 SCC 14 - held inapplicable.

         Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club and Anr. vs.
F   Chander Hass and Anr. JT 2008(3) SC 221; Common Cause
    vs. Union of India and Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 511 - referred to.

        3. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set
    aside and the writ petitions are dismissed. (Para 18) ·
G                         Case Law Reference:
     AIR 1996 SC 11                Relied on.          Para 14
     (1998) Suppl. 1 SCC 679 held inapplicable. Para 15

H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. KASHMIR SINGH 903
            AND ANOTHER ETC.

 (2003) 1o sec 14              held inapplicable. Para 15         A
 JT 2008(3) SC 221             Referred to.        Para 17

 (2008) 5 sec 511              Referred to.        Para 17

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.               B
8690-8701 of 2010.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 31.05.2006 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 6941,
7109, 7607, 7665, 7695, 7837, 8018, 8310, 8636, 8704, 8814
& 9117 of 2006.                                                   C

    Manjit Singh, AAG, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Appellants.

    Jagdev Singh Manhas for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                    D

    MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.

    2. These appeals have been filed against the common
imougned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court            E
dated 51.5.2006 in CWP Nos. 7695, 7607, 7665, 7837, 8636,
8704, 8814, 9117, 6941, 8018 and 8310 of 2006.

    3. Heard learned counsel fv1 the parties and perused the
record.
                                                                   F
     4. The respondents herein were serving in various districts
in the State of Haryana as Constables, Head Constables,
Exemptee Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and
Sub-Inspectors (hereinafter in short as ASI and SI, respectively).
They were ordered to be transferred to other districts and
ranges by the Inspector General of Police. The respondents G
challenged the transfer orders contending that in view of the
Punjab Police rules so far as Constables, Head Constables
and Exemptee Constables are concerned, they could not be
transferred outside the district, and so far as ASI and Sis are
                                                                   H
    904       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 11 S.C.R.


A   concerned, they could not be transferred outside the range.

         5. This contention has been upheld by the Division Bench
    of the High Court and hence these appeals.

        6. With respect, we are unable to agree with the High
B   Court.

        7. Section 1 of the Indian Police Act 1861 defines a
    'general police district' as follows :

          "the words 'general police district' shall embrace any
c         presidency, State of place, or any part of any presidency,
          State or place, in which this Act shall be ordered to take
          effect".

          8. Section 2 of the Act states as follows :
D
          "Constitution of the force. - The entire police
          establishment under a State government shall, for the
          purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police force
          and shall be formally enrolled, and shall consist of such
E         number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in
          such manner, as shall from time be ordered by the State
          Government".

          9. Section 4 of the Act states as follows:

F         "Inspector-General of Police, etc. - the administration of
          the police throughout a general police-district shall be
          vested in an officer to be styled the Inspector-General of
          Police, and in such Deputy Inspectors-General and
          Assistant Inspectors-General as to the (State Government)
G         shall seem fit.

                 The administration of the police throughout the local
          jurisdiction of the Magistrate of the district shall, under the
          general control and direction of such Magistrate, be
          vested in a District Superintendent and such Assistant
H
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. KASHMIR SINGH 905
  AND ANOTHER ETC. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.]
    District Superintendents as the (State Government) shall         A
    consider necessary".

     10. Thus a perusal of the relevant provisions of the Police
Act clearly shows that the State police is one integral unit and
does not consist of separate independent units. The overall          B
administrative control of the police in the State is with the
Inspector-General of Police (now the Director-General of
Police).

    11. We may now also consider the relevant Rules in the
Punjab Police rules 1934 {hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').   C
Rule 1.4 of the Rules states as follows :

    "Rule 1.4 - Administrative Division: - The districts of the
    province are grouped in Ranges and the administration of
    all police within each such range is vested in a Deputy D
    Inspector General under the control of the Inspector-
    General of Police.

         The training school is under the district control of the
    Inspector-General subject to such delegation of powers as
    he may make to one or other of the range Deputy Inspector        E
    General. The Criminal Investigation Department is
    administered by a Deputy Inspector General, who also
    supervises the Finger Print Bureau".

    Rule 1.5 - Limits of jurisdiction and liability to transfer      F
    - All police officers appointed or enrolled in either of the
    two general police districts constitute one police force and
    are liable to, and legally empowered for, police duty,
    anywhere within the province. No sub-division of the force
    territorially or by classes, such as mounted and foot police,    G
    affects this principle.

          Every police officer shall be liable to serve at any
    place, whether within or outside the State of Haryana and
    in any organization under the Central government or being
    ordered so to do by the appointing authority. Every police       H
    906       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 11 S.C.R.


A         officer is empowered to under Section 3 of the Police Act
          1888 (Central Act 3 of 1988), when necessary, to exercise
          the powers, functions and privileges of a police officer in
          any part of India. In the exercise of such functions a police
          officer is deemed to be a member of the police force of
B         the State of Union of India, in which he is at the time".

          "Rule 12.26 - Inter District Transfers. - Exchange of
          appointment lower subordinates in districts of the same
          range or between such police officers in the railway and
          district police, may be effected subject to the approval of
c         the Superintendents concerned (or of the Assistant
          Inspector General in cases affecting the railway police). A
          lower subordinate may be transferred to fill a vacancy in a
          district other than that in which he is serving only with the
          sanction of the Deputy Inspector General of the range. In
D         cases of transfer from and to districts in different ranges,
          or from and to districts in different ranges, or from and to
          the railway police, the sanction of both Deputy Inspector
          General concerned and the Superintendent of Police
          Railways is required".
E
          "Rule 14/15 - 14.15(1) - All enrolled police officers are,
          under Section 22 of the Police Act, liable for service in any
          part of the general police district".

          12. A perusal of the relevant provisions of the Police Act
F   and the Rules thus clearly shows that the entire police
    establishment under the State Government is one integrated
    police force, though for better administration the State has been
    sub-divided into districts/ranges. Rule 1.5 of the Rules clearly
    shows that police officers constitute one police force and are
G   liable to be posted anywhere in the State. Moreover, Rule 1.5
    also clearly states that no sub-division of the force territorially
    or by classes, affects this principle. Transfer from one district
    to another district or from one range to another range can be
    effected, though with the sanction of certain authorities
H   mentioned in Rule 12.26.
 STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. v. KASHMIR SINGH 907
   AND ANOTHER ETC. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.]
      13. Thus, a plain perusal of the Punjab Police Rule shows A
that transfer can be done from one district to another district or
even to another range, and there is no absolute prohibition for
doing so. However, in such a case, the seniority of Constable
and Head Constables at the district level and of ASI and SI at
the range level is maintained in the parent district/range despite B
the transfer. Promotion/confirmation is also given strictly as per
the seniority in the parent district/range level, as per Memo No.
43515-22/E-(lll) dated 10.8.2010.

      14. Transfer ordinarily is an incidence of service, and the
Courts should be very reluctant to interfere in transfer orders as C
long as they are not clearly illegal. In particular, we are of the
opinion that transfer and postings of policemen must be left in
the discretion of the concerned State authorities which are in
the best position to assess the necessities of the administrative
requirements of the situation. The concerned administrative D
authorities may be of the opinion that more policemen are
required in any particular district and/or another range than in
another, depending upon their assessment of the law and order
situation and/or other considerations. These are purely
administrative matters, and it is well-settled that Courts must not E
ordinarily interfere in administrative matters and should maintain
judicial restraint vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India - AIR 1996
SC 11.

     15. The High Court in the impugned judgment has relied F
upon the decision of this Court in Jawaharlal Nehru University
vs. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar and others - (1998) Suppl. 1 SCC 679.
After carefully considering the said decision we are of the
opinion that it has no relevance in the present case. In that
decision the facts were that the employees of the Jawaharlal
Nehru University were sought to be transferred to the Manipur G
University as the centre of post graduate studies set up by the
Jawaharlal Nehru University at Manipur was closed down and
the centre was transferred to Manipur University. This Court held
that an employee of one University cannot be transferred to
                                                                   H
    908      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2010) 11 S.C.R.


A   another University without his consent. We fail to understand
    what relevance this decision has with the present case. In the
    present case, it is not that the respondent employees are being
    transferred from one employer to another employer. Here the
    employer remains the same i.e. the State of Haryana. Hence,
B   the aforesaid decision has no relevance in the present case.
    For .the same reason G. Varandani vs. Kurukshetra University
    and another- (2003) 10 sec 14 also has no relevance.

         16. In our opinion, the High Court has taken a totally
C   impractical view of the matter. If the view of the High Court is
    to prevail, great difficulties will be created for the State
    administration since it will not be able to transfer/deploy its
    police force from one place where there may be relative peace
    to another district or region/range in the State where there may
    be disturbed law and order situation and hence requirement of
D   more police. Courts should not, in our opinion, interfere with
    purely administrative matters except where absolutely
    necessary on account of violation of any fundamental or other
    legal right of the citizen. After all, the State administration cannot
    function with its hands tied by judiciary behind its back. As
E   Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court pointed out, there
    must be some free-play of the joints provided to the executive
    authorities.

         17. This Court also held in Divisional Manager, Aravali
F   Golf Club & another vs. Chander Hass & another - JT 2008(3)
    SC 221 and Common Cause vs. Union of India & others -
    (2008) 5 sec 511 that Judges must observe judicial restraint
    and must not ordinarily encroach into the domain of the
    legislature or the executive.
                                                                      "'-..
G        18. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals succeed and
    are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of the High coUrt
    is set aside and the writ petitions before the High Court stand
    dismissed. No costs.

H N.J.                                                 Appeal allowed.