REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8690-8701 OF 2010 [arising out of Special Leave Petitions(Civil) Nos. 18686-18697/2007]

State of  Haryana and others …… Appellants  -versus-

Kashmir Singh and another etc. etc. …….      Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common impugned  

judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 51.5.2006 in  

CWP Nos. 7695, 7607, 7665, 7837, 8636, 8704, 8814, 9117, 6941,  

8018 and 8310 of 2006.

1

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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 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  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 Court.

2

7. Section 1 of the Indian Police Act 1861 defines a ‘general police  

district’  as follows :

“the  words  ‘general  police  district’  shall  embrace  any  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 :

“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  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:

“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  

3

Assistant  Inspectors-General  as  to  the  (State  Government) 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  District Superintendents as the (State Government) shall  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  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’).  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  

4

all police within each such range is vested in a Deputy  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  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 – 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, 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  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  

5

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 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  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  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”.

“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 and the  

Rules thus clearly shows that the entire police establishment under  

6

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  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 mentioned  

in Rule 12.26.

13. Thus,  a  plain  perusal  of  the  Punjab  Police  Rule  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  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  the  transfer.  

Promotion/confirmation is also given strictly as per the seniority in the  

7

parent district/range level, as per Memo No. 43515-22/E-(III)  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 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 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  

ordinarily  interfere  in  administrative  matters  and  should  maintain  

judicial  restraint vide Tata Cellular  vs.   Union of India - AIR 1996  

SC 11.

8

15. The High Court in the impugned judgment  has relied 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 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  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, the  

aforesaid decision has no relevance in the present case.  For the  

same reason  G.Varandani vs. Kurukshetra University and another –  

(2003) 10 SCC 14 also has no relevance.  

9

16. In our opinion, the High Court  has taken a totally 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  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 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 Golf Club &  

another vs.  Chander  Hass  &  another –  JT  2008(3)  SC  221  and  

Common Cause vs. Union of India & others – (2008) 5 SCC 511 that  

1

Judges  must  observe  judicial  restraint  and  must  not  ordinarily  

encroach into the domain of the legislature or the executive.

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.

……………..……………….J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

…………………………..….J. (T. S. THAKUR)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 06, 2010  

1