JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order No. PHQ/SAF/7(9)/HAWK Force Chayan/2001/41, passed by respondent No. 5 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, S.A.F. (Training), Police Head Quarters, Bhopal, on 23-1-2002, in pursuance of the order dated 11-1-2002. 2. Briefly, it may be mentioned that the petitioner was appointed as constable in the District Executive Police Force, District Harda, in May, 2000, according to Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1996. The State Government constituted an advanced police force called HAWK Force for the administration of Naxalites affected areas and for this purpose a letter (Annexure P-1) was sent by respondent No. 4 Additional Director General of Police (Training), Police Head Quarters, Bhopal to respondent No. 6 - Deputy Inspector General of Police, S.A.F., Jabalpur on 26-6-2001. In the said letter dated 26-6-2001 policy for selection has been provided and it has been mentioned that 145 constables are required for the HAWK Force and they will be shortlisted from 250 constables to be selected from training Schools at Pachmadhi and Indore. The criteria for the selection of constables was also explained in the letter and it transpires from the above letter that for selection in the HAWK Force consent of the constable concerned was required. 3. It is submitted by the petitioner that in complete contravention to the criteria set for by Annexure P-1, the respondents issued the order under challenge dated 11-1-2002 and subsequently the order dated 23-1-2002. In the order dated 11-1-2002 the list of 91 candidates was prepared and the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 57. 4. Vide letter dated 23-1-2002 the concerned Superintendents of Police were informed to relieve those constables who were selected for HAWK Force for their training at 6th M.P. Battalion, Jabalpur. 5. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 11-1-2002 and 23-1-2002, petitioner filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') which was registered as original Application No. 77 of 2002. It was contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as constable in District Executive Police Force and change in the service conditions cannot be made without his consent. This change will adversely affect his seniority and promotion. 6. It was contended by the petitioner that he was initially appointed as constable in District Executive Police Force and change in the service conditions cannot be made without his consent. This change will adversely affect his seniority and promotion. 6. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 31-1-2002 dismissed the petition in limine observing that creation of HAWK Force does not amount to constitution of a new discipline. A police official is under obligation to serve anywhere as and when so required. 7. The petitioner has averred that an identical matter registered as O.A. No. 175/2002 was admitted by the State Administrative Tribunal, Bench Gwalior wherein notices were also directed to be issued to the respondents. The petitioner has also submitted that 'Special Force' means specially constituted force. Therefore, the constables working in the District Executive Force could not have been transferred to S.A.F. without their consent. According to the petitioner his transfer by the respondents is arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23-1-2002, issued in pursuance of order dated 11-1-2002 and also the order passed by the Tribunal on 31-1-2002 in the O.A. No. 77/2002. 8. We have heard Shri Shobhit Aditya, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and we are of the view that this petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. As per the communication - Annexure P-1, dated 26-6-2001 D.I. Gs. at Indore and Jabalpur were requested to select 250 constables for getting training at Indore and Pachmadhi. The criteria of selection was that the person should not have crossed the age of 30 years and his height should be 57" or more; and he must have passed examination of Class - Xth. The candidates thus selected were to report for special training w.e.f. 1-2-2002. This training was being imparted at the 6th M. P. Battalion of S.A.F., Jabalpur. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as police constable. It is the duty of the police to maintain law and order. Members of police force may be called upon to undertake any duty which is necessary for maintenance of law and order and naxalite problem is an extension of the problem of law and order. The varying socio-political scenes and demographic situations have resulted in law and order problems of varying intensities. Members of police force may be called upon to undertake any duty which is necessary for maintenance of law and order and naxalite problem is an extension of the problem of law and order. The varying socio-political scenes and demographic situations have resulted in law and order problems of varying intensities. Naxalite problem is one such problem which is more intense than the others and is aimed at bringing about a sociological order even though by use of violence. Such a problem has to be dealt with more sternly and requires personnel who carry optimum physical attributes. Thus, it is seen that tackling naxalite problem has essentially to be an interdisciplinary activity of the police force. 10. Differing demographic and sociological situations existing within the country have resulted in diverse nature of problems in society calling for a more aggressive approach. Police force should be rationally and economically organized so that specialist services can be developed without any overlap or conflict between the responsibilities of different units. If for different operations different parallel forces having separate neuclie will be constituted, it will not be viable economically. Out of the available existing police force specialized organizations can be constituted. 11. The petitioner wants that he should escape the responsibility of facing naxalites. He cannot escape like this. The problem may be summarized in the latin question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ("who guards the guardians?"). The police is not only responsible for the maintenance of public order and safety but prevention of crime and bring the offenders to justice. They are also required to co-ordinate with the detective agencies. The petitioner and other recruits have attended the training course at State Police Schools at Indore and Pachmadhi which is aimed at equipping them with necessary skills to deal with menace such as naxalite problem. So equipped, they cannot turn volte face now. Relieving a constable from District Executive Force to work in the specially constituted HAWK Force is not a transfer to separate police forces as exist in the railway, military and protection of industries or atomic research establishments. The policeman is subject to close control of superiors. A disciplined body of men incorporated in an organization cannot be a chooser and cannot seek such relief. 12. The petitioner is apparently coward as he is not prepared to face the naxalities. The policeman is subject to close control of superiors. A disciplined body of men incorporated in an organization cannot be a chooser and cannot seek such relief. 12. The petitioner is apparently coward as he is not prepared to face the naxalities. The petitioner is already a trained constable and getting further training to combat the naxalites. Special pay is being given to the constables selected for HAWK Force. Such a position should go to men who have learned work by practice. The appointments in the HAWK Force has been offered to those who are young and trained officers of the police having a physique and an outlook to do the work in HAWK Force. The younger amongst have been selected for HAWK. 13. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Annexure P-1, the preference was required to be given to the constables who are from naxalite affected areas/districts. The petitioner belongs to Harda which is not a naxalite affected district. The petitioner cannot get relief from this Court only on the ground that he is from a particular district. 14. The police, in fact, is a branch of the government which is charged with the preservation of public order and tranquility, the promotion of the public health, safety and morals and the preservation, detection and punishment of crimes. To protect people and property and making people obey the law and catching the people who create a threat for the society is the basic duty of police. A new recruit who has joined the police force knowing fully well the responsibilities, cannot shirk his duty. A coward like the petitioner should not have been selected for the service in the first place but in the present situation, when he has acquired enough skills, he ought to gracefully accept the challenge and do his best to prove his wroth. 15. As per the Police Regulation 64 which contains general conditions of service of a police official, a police official is required to faithfully and honestly use his best abilities to fulfil all his duties, as a police officer and that he shall serve and reside wherever he may be directed to reside and serve. 16. A member of the police force can be deputed by the authorities for any specialized work. 16. A member of the police force can be deputed by the authorities for any specialized work. The exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India in granting writs is discretionary power and a writ cannot be issued as a matter of course. Article 226 of the Constitution is not addressed to the court in the language of an inexorable command. Of necessity, it does not enjoin upon the Court to issue writs, orders and directions as a matter of course for the asking. The order under these provisions of the Constitution may be made by the High Court only to advance justice in the exercise of its wide discretion. The action of the respondents does not appear to be arbitrary or discriminatory. It also does not appear that exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal has cast manifest or substantial injustice to the petitioner. 17. The conduct of the petitioner is such as to disentitle him to the relief. He has not suffered any injustice. No legal right of the petitioner has been invaded or threatened. The Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application. There are no mala fides on the part of the respondents. The application was rightly dismissed summarily by the Tribunal. 18. The public interest dictates and equity projects that no relief should be given to the petitioner. In A.M. Alison and another vs. B.L. Sen and others, AIR 1957 SC 227 the Apex Court observed thus:- ......Proceedings by way of certiorari are "not of course". (Vide Halsbury's "Laws of England", Hailsham Edition, Vol. 9, paras 1480 and 1481, pp. 877-878). The High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Art. 226, we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. But we are not so satisfied........ 19. In view of what is stated earlier, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed in limine, without notice to other party.