( 1 ) SHRI Prem Kumar Misra has filed this petition for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned transfer order dated 22. 8. 2002, as contained in Annexure-1 to the petition. During the pendency of the petition, another transfer order dated 6. 10. 2003 was issued and the same has been challenged and sought to be quashed. Further, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the inspector General of Police (Establishment), U. P. Lucknow and all other relevant authorities to adhere to the norms prescribed under the Government Order dated 25. 3. 1995 and allow the petitioner to work as Inspector of Police, G. R. P. , Kanpur Nagar where he was posted prior to the impugned order dated 22. 8. 2002 having been issued. ( 2 ) THE petitioners case is that he was posted in G. R. P. Kanpur as Inspector of Police with effect from 26. 8. 2000 and since then, he was working to the entire satisfaction of his superior authorities. Although, he was not due for his transfer, yet without any rhyme or reason, he was dislodged from the post of Inspector, G. R. P. , kanpur and transferred to Gorakhpur. As a matter of fact, Shri karamveer Singh Sachan, opposite party No. 4 was posted in place of the petitioner as Inspector, G. R. P. , Kanpur on the recommendation of one Shri Ashok Katiyar, Member of the legislative Assembly. Shri Katiyar alleged in the letter (Annexure-2) that Shri Sachan was his close relative and therefore, he might be transferred to Kanpur Nagar. The Government granted his request and posted Sachan in place of the petitioner. Obviously thus, the petitioners transfer from Kanpur G. R. P. police station was issued under political pressure. The order besides being mala fide was arbitrary and illegal. Apart that, the transfer order was issued in the mid of academic session, as a result of which the education of his children was disturbed. His son Devashish Misra was studying at the relevant time in the final year of Intermediate science in J. K. Inter College, Kanpur and his daughter was studying in Xith Class (Science) in the same college. If the children were to be shifted, their academic career was likely to suffer a set back, as both of them would have lost one academic year. If the children were to be shifted, their academic career was likely to suffer a set back, as both of them would have lost one academic year. The petitioner is a low paid servant, therefore, it would have been difficult for him to meet both ends. He had already spent considerable amount on admission, books and other material particulars as directed by the college authorities. The entire money spent by him for the education of his children would go waste if the petitioner was compelled to proceed on transfer at this juncture. In fact, the mid-term transfer of the petitioner was a clear-cut punishment inflicted upon him and his family members. In case of leaving his family to stay back at Kanpur with a view to carry on the education of his children, he would have to bear expenditures of two establishments - one of his own at the transferred place and the other that of his family at Kanpur. Certainly, this would have created a financial crisis for him. Moreover, a mid-term transfer like the one in hand is against the policy of the State Government as envisaged in the Government order dated 2002. Although, the said transfer policy might be termed to be as non-statutory but it is a settled law that the authority which frames the policy is expected to adhere to it. Otherwise, an action in derogation thereof would be arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners transfer purports to have been issued on administrative ground, although nothing adverse has been communicated to him. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner was transferred from one place to another several times and eventually, he was posted as Inspector, Mugalsarai G. R. P. police station vide order dated 2. 4. 2003. He joined there on 31. 5. 2003 and since then, he is working there. As he has been dislodged from Kanpur and for months together, he was kept on being shifted from here and there with an intervening order of suspension which was, though, stayed by this Court, he joined at lucknow, Allahabad and Mugalsarai under protest and subject to the result of the petition. However, barely two months after he joined at Mugalsarai, he was shifted to Lucknow in Anti Corruption wing of the police establishment. ( 3 ) THE petitioners transfer order was, however, modified on 24. 5. However, barely two months after he joined at Mugalsarai, he was shifted to Lucknow in Anti Corruption wing of the police establishment. ( 3 ) THE petitioners transfer order was, however, modified on 24. 5. 2003 when Shri Narendra Pal Singh was posted as Inspector, g. R. P. Mugalsarai. However, this Court vide interim order dated 7. 7. 2003, stayed the petitioners transfer from G. R. P. Mughalsarai. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred again vide order dated 30. 7. 2003 from Mugalsarai to Anti-Corruption Organisation, lucknow. This transfer order was also kept in abeyance but in the meantime, the Government proposed to depute Shri Laxmi narayan Yadav at Mughalsarai in place of the petitioner and a FAX message dated 6. 10. 2003 (Annexure-7) was received. ( 4 ) IT is alleged further by way of amendment of his petition that the Government in order to corner the petitioner from every angle amended the norms regarding posting on deputation in G. R. P. and reduced the deputation period from 6 to 3 years. Since the said modified order dated 19. 11. 2003 (Annexure-9) is tainted with mala fides, it is sought to be quashed. In this way, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow him either to work as Inspector of Police, G. R. P. Kanpur Nagar or inspector, G. R. P. at Mughalsarai. ( 5 ) THE opposite-parties No. 1 to 3 resisted this petition through the counter-affidavit of Sri S. B. Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Kanpur. It was asserted by him that the transfer order of the petitioner after his two years stay at Kanpur had been issued in public interest. As a matter of fact, he was awarded a censure entry in October, 2001 for having not registered a case against some Constables. Sri Karamveer Singh Sachan has been posted in his place in consequence of his transfer and not under any political influence or on the recommendation of M. L. A. Shri Ashok Katiyar. Shri Karamveer Singh Sachan is a good officer of the police force and this fact was substantiated by a gallantry award given to him by the President of India. He was also awarded a gold medal for scientific investigation. The petitioners transfer neither changed his cadre nor degraded him in any way. Shri Karamveer Singh Sachan is a good officer of the police force and this fact was substantiated by a gallantry award given to him by the President of India. He was also awarded a gold medal for scientific investigation. The petitioners transfer neither changed his cadre nor degraded him in any way. It was significant to mention as asserted further by the Deputy superintendent of Police that prior to his posting in the year 2000 in Kanpur he had served in the Kanpur City in Civil Police for nearly seven years i. e. from 18. 12. 1979 to 7. 11. 1986; and apart that he also remained posted in adjoining district Unnao from 1986 to 1990. In this way, he managed his postings at Kanpur and unnao. His continuance at G. R. P. Kanpur would be contrary to the provisions of para 524 of the Police Regulations. Therefore, his transfer order has been issued without discrimination nor his transfer order by any stretch of reasoning can be termed to be as arbitrary or mala fide. In pursuance of his transfer order, he was relieved of his charge at Kanpur on August 23, 2002 and Sri karamveer Singh Sachan had taken over soon thereafter. The petitioner was placed under suspension for dereliction of duty as he did not join his duty at G. R. P. , Gorakhpur. However, he was subsequently reinstated in service and posted at Lucknow in the g. R. P. Headquarters in compliance to the Courts Orders. The grounds taken for cancellation of his transfer order are not tenable in the eyes of law and as such, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) SRI Karamveer Singh Sachan, who was posted in place of the petitioner, initially contested this writ petition but subsequently he lost his interest as he was placed under suspension and later on being reinstated transferred to some other place. As a consequence, he had withdrawn from this writ petition, as submitted by his Counsel Sri A. P. Singh. ( 7 ) THE petitioner during the pendency of this petition was transferred more than once. He has sought for cancellation of his transfer orders and insisted for his posting at Kanpur on the ground that his transfer from there was made under political influence which was tainted with mala fides. ( 7 ) THE petitioner during the pendency of this petition was transferred more than once. He has sought for cancellation of his transfer orders and insisted for his posting at Kanpur on the ground that his transfer from there was made under political influence which was tainted with mala fides. He has accordingly moved his writ petition alongwith the prayer. In the meantime, the railway police force moved an application for vacation of the stay order on the ground that the Government had changed the policy of posting an Inspector in G. R. P. from six years to three years and since the petitioner has completed that term in the department, he was proposed to be reverted to the civil police. On the other hand, the petitioner questioned the propriety and validity of the said policy and also sought a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the said policy (Order dated November 17, 2003 ). According to him, the order regarding change in the policy is full of mala fides as is evident from the orders regarding posting of another Inspector at mughalsarai, despite the stay order issued by this Court being operational. ( 8 ) I have heard Dr. L. P. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. S. Chauhan, learned Additional Government advocate appearing for the State and also perused the record. ( 9 ) IT is settled law that normally this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 would not interfere with an order of transfer but at the same time such an inference is justified if it is proved from record that a Government Servant has been transferred with a mala fide move or under political influence. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been made a rolling stone with six transfer orders during a span of less than one year. He was transferred from Kanpur to Gorakhpur in August, 2002 by virtue of the order which is sought to be quashed on two grounds - the first being that the officer posted in his place was related to an m. L. A. who secured his posting; and secondly, his transfer order was arbitrary and further based on mala fides. These averments of the petitioner will be dealt with in due course while making discussions in later part of the judgment. These averments of the petitioner will be dealt with in due course while making discussions in later part of the judgment. Here, it is important to note that after his first transfer to Gorakhpur he was placed under suspension and since he established from record that he was being subjected to victimization for his protest being lodged against his pre-mature transfer from Kanpur, this Court interfered with his suspension order and stayed the operation of the suspension order with a direction to reinstate and accommodate him at Lucknow for the time being. However, such order was held to be subject to the final orders of this Court. In pursuance of the Courts Order dated 29th August, 2002, he was attached with the G. R. P. Headquarters but not provided a post equivalent to that of the Inspector in g. R. P. Subsequently, when Mr. Karamveer Singh Sachan was placed under suspension, the petitioner was posted at Kanpur for a few days but then shifted again vide Order dated 25th November, 2002 to Allahabad. Barely a few months after, he was again transferred to Mughalsarai G. R. P. Railway Station and only two months thereafter, he was posted in Special Wing of Anti-corruption Department at Lucknow. Obviously thus he has been thrown like a football from one place to another not only once or twice but as many as six times during a short span of less than one year. ( 10 ) THIS very fact of his being made a rolling stone is much more than a desired proof to indicate mala fides on the part of the transferring authority. It is further fortified from the letter dated 31st July, 2002 (Annexure 2) which was written by Sri Ashok katiyar, sitting M. L. A. of Kanpur City. This letter was addressed to the then Chief Minister. Its perusal reveals that Sri Karamveer singh Sachan was a President Medal Awardee and a close relation of the author of the letter. In spite of the fact that his services had been recognized for his excellent performance, he had been transferred from Kanpur Dehat to Lucknow in a cooperative cell. It was then recited in the letter that his wife was not keeping well and she was under treatment at Kanpur. In spite of the fact that his services had been recognized for his excellent performance, he had been transferred from Kanpur Dehat to Lucknow in a cooperative cell. It was then recited in the letter that his wife was not keeping well and she was under treatment at Kanpur. Therefore, it was recommended that Sri Karamveer Singh Sachan might be posted as Inspector in G. R. P. at Kanpur City of Allahabad Range. The secretary to the Chief Minister made an endorsement on his letter and directed the Inspector General (Establishment) to post Sri karamveer Singh Sachan at G. R. P. , Kanpur City. It was in compliance with this Order that the petitioner was dislodged from the post of Inspector, P. S. G. R. P. Kanpur and transferred to gorakhpur. ( 11 ) THE basis of the letter was termed to be as administrative as well as public interest but this composite ground can be thrown to the winds on the face of the recitals of letter referred to above. It is evident that since Sri Karamveer Singh Sachan was transferred from Kanpur (Railways) to Lucknow in a cooperative cell which is considered to be an insignificant posting, the petitioner was shifted neither in public interest nor on administrative ground but merely to accommodate Sri Karamveer Singh Sachan. The administrative ground is neither convincing nor sustainable. Sri S. B. Singh, the deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways), Kanpur made an endeavour to point out that the petitioner was censured for having not registered a case against three G. R. P. Constables who had unauthroisedly realized Rs. 130/- from one railway passenger in september, 2000. In this context, it is noteworthy that the case was registered at the instance of the petitioner on October, 2000 but as delay was apparent, the petitioner was censured for carelessness and dereliction of duty. It appears from perusal of the censure entry [annexure CA1 on record] that this entry criticizing the petitioners role and holding him irresponsible had been conveyed to him in October, 2001. Meaning thereby that the chapter on that count had been closed long before the order for the petitioners transfer had been issued in 2002. Even the authorities took about a year to come to the conclusion that the petitioners act deserved to be censured and even after the entry was awarded, no immediate action was taken against him. Meaning thereby that the chapter on that count had been closed long before the order for the petitioners transfer had been issued in 2002. Even the authorities took about a year to come to the conclusion that the petitioners act deserved to be censured and even after the entry was awarded, no immediate action was taken against him. It may, therefore, well be derived that the submission about the petitioners transfer being posted on the basis of the censure entry is illogical. It appears that the authority made an uncalled for effort to link the petitioners transfer with the aforesaid episode. As about ten months lapsed between the two events connecting the twosome is irrelevant and a false ground. The letter (Annexure 2) written by the sitting M. L. A. of Kanpur City, in fact, is the real basis and the sole ground of the petitioner being dislodged prematurely from g. R. P. Kanpur City Police Station and further since, the transfer order was issued with a palpable intention to accommodate Sri karamveer Singh Sachan on the recommendation of the sitting m. L. A. because of Sachan being posted on an unimportant post in lucknow, the transfer order (Annexure 1) was positively suffering from mala fides. A Division Bench of this Court has laid down a principle of law in lokesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and others [1997 (2) LBESR 713 (All) (LB)] that without there being any exigency or public interest a transfer order issued mainly for political reason is liable to be set aside. In that case also, a number of officials of sugar mill were transferred on the recommendation of a Member of Legislative Council. The following observations would be relevant to be quoted:- "as regards the merit of the action of the respondents to transfer the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that series of events and the material on record establish that the respondents in colourable exercise of their power on extraneous considerations, have passed the impugned order of transfer only for political reasons. " "although in the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the impugned action of transfer has been taken in public interest and on the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authority in view of the complaints received against the petitioner from responsible persons holding public office which has also been taken note of by honble the Chief Minister but no material whatsoever has been brought on record which may reflect the unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner. " ( 12 ) IN the case in hand also, the respondents have not been able to bring on record any material, which would indicate that there were minor or major complaints against the petitioner. Also there is nothing to show that the work and conduct of the petitioner was in any way far from satisfactory and as has also been observed above, there was no link between the transfer orders and the censure entry awarded to him some ten months before for an episode of 2000. The contention that the petitioner has been longing in and around Kanpur for a considerable period has also lost its veracity for the simple reason of there being a vast gap between his past and present postings at Kanpur. ( 13 ) MR. S. B. Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Railways) in para 13 of his counter-affidavit has stated that the petitioner has been posted at Kanpur City in Civil Police from 18. 12. 1979 to 7. 11. 1986 i. e. , about seven years and thereafter, he was posted in adjoining district Unnao from 8. 11. 1986 to 28. 6. 1990. In this way, he remained posted in Kanpur and adjoining district for a total period of twelve years and this shows that he manipulated his postings, as he wanted to stick at Kanpur or the neighbouring areas. These averments seem to be totally irrelevant and by no stretch of reasoning provide any administrative exigency so as to call for the petitioners premature transfer and that too, in the mid-session which had resulted in serious disturbance of his childrens education. He came to G. R. P. Kanpur 14 years after his last posting in the city and some ten years after his last posting in the adjacent town Unnao. He came to G. R. P. Kanpur 14 years after his last posting in the city and some ten years after his last posting in the adjacent town Unnao. Though a bald statement was made that he managed and manipulated his postings in and around Unnao but there was no specific instance that he either made a request in writing or orally managed with the authorities for his transfer and posting to Kanpur and Unnao. Therefore, his second posting at Kanpur can neither be said to be manipulated or managed by his own efforts nor there being a long gap of about 14 years between his two postings at Kanpur, there was anything wrong or against public interest if he was posted at kanpur in July, 2000. Moreover, if at all there was any manipulation on his part, it should have been taken note of by the appropriate authorities soon after his posting at G. R. P. Kanpur or at the most, it can be said that when he did not allegedly register a case against the police constables who were accused of realizing unauthorized money from one railway passenger, the said juncture might be the relevant point of time for his transfer on administrative ground but not only that even an action against him was kept pending for about an year but also he was conveniently and comfortably allowed to serve the Government Railway Police upto August, 2002. ( 14 ) KEEPING these aspects of the matter, I am not inclined to subscribe to the above referred administrative grounds for the petitioners transfer order under challenge and it is not a sin for any Government Servant to construct a house in the city or town of his choice as everyone needs a house not only for himself but his other family members too. Therefore, if the petitioner got a house constructed in Geeta Nagar and his family was residing there since very beginning, it was not a sustainable ground for his transfer as by mere construction of a house, Kanpur did not become his hometown; nor it was any indication that even during his absence while serving any other areas of the State his family would continue to reside permanently in the city of Kanpur alone thereby negating his argument about disturbance of his childrens education. ( 15 ) IT is thus more than clear from above that neither there was any public interest nor administrative exigency so as to justify the petitioners midterm transfer; rather it is candidly established from the Member of Legislative Assemblys letter that he exercised his political influence in order to have his close relation Sri Sachan accommodated and posted at G. R. P. Kanpur and since the M. L. A. belonged to the then ruling party, inclined favourtism was bestowed upon his request and with his accommodation in place of the petitioner, the latter had to be thrown to a distant place at gorakhpur. ( 16 ) THE Apex Court in director of School Education, Madras and others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another [1994 Supp (2)Supreme Court Cases 666] held that in effecting transfer, the fact that the children of an employee are studying should be given due weight, unless the exigencies of service are urgent. ( 17 ) IN another citation, pradeep Kumar Agrawal v. Director, local Bodies, U. P. IV, Lucknow and others [ (1994) 1 UPLBEC 189] this Court laid down that where an order of transfer is made against any statutory mandatory rule or ex facie it does not appear mala fide or passed in colourable exercise of power or motivated to cause harassment by transferring the employee frequently within a short span of period, the Court can certainly interfere so as to create sense of protection under law and thereby securing the ends of justice. In that case, a Member of Parliament recommended for transfer of a Nagar Palika employee and it was made out from the letter of Member of Parliament that the letter had been processed by senior officers of the Government like Joint Secretary and secretary and their endorsements assumed the shape of transfer order. The endorsements made by them provide authenticity to the eventually issued transfer order. The Division Bench settled the principle as follows:- "it would be appropriate to observe here that in a democratic setup like ours, bureaucrats are expected to act and discharge their executive functions impartially and strictly in accordance with the Rules and regulations. The endorsements made by them provide authenticity to the eventually issued transfer order. The Division Bench settled the principle as follows:- "it would be appropriate to observe here that in a democratic setup like ours, bureaucrats are expected to act and discharge their executive functions impartially and strictly in accordance with the Rules and regulations. No doubt, as of right no Government servant can claim to be posted either on a particular station or post, therefore the transfers are to be done only in administrative exigencies and in public interest, but in the instant case the letter written by the aforesaid M. P. addressed to Minister for Urban development bearing endorsement of the officers of the state Government, indicates that instant transfer has neither been made in administrative exigency nor in public interest. It is not only a matter of surprise but highly objectionable that bureaucrats are dancing at the tunes of such letters ignoring the well settled norms meant for transfer. " ( 18 ) SIMILAR are the facts of the case in hand where the petitioner was shifted from G. R. P. Kanpur Railway Station - first to gorakhpur and then to several other places as mentioned. His initial transfer order under challenge has been endorsed on the margin of the same letter which was addressed to the Chief minister by the sitting M. L. A. of Kanpur. The Secretary to the Chief minister not only signed the endorsement but also affixed his seal underneath his signature, thereby authenticating the importance of the orders. Apparently, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure-1) suffers from serous mala fides and it is far from being issued either on administrative exigency or in public interest. Accordingly, it deserves to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to a reprievement by his posting at the same place as he consequent to the said transfer suffered lot of humiliation while being thrown five times more from one place to another besides being placed under suspension for not joining his duty at Gorakhpur. It appears that the petitioner was subjected to his suspension immediately after he filed this writ petition seeking cancellation of his transfer order. ( 19 ) THE possibility of the said suspension order having been issued on back date cannot be ruled out. However, the petitioner received the suspension order dated 26th August, 2002 a day after he filed his writ petition. ( 19 ) THE possibility of the said suspension order having been issued on back date cannot be ruled out. However, the petitioner received the suspension order dated 26th August, 2002 a day after he filed his writ petition. Indeed, the suspension order intended to give sour taste to the petitioner for his daring act of filing a writ petition was not at all justified as in a democratic setup everyone including a police officer as well as public official has a right to air his grievance and lodge his protest against an arbitrary order passed on the basis of nepotism. The petitioner fell sick soon after he received his transfer order and he sent his application on the ground of illness. The Discharge Slip of U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur which is a District Hospital lends full assurance to the ground of his illness. He was advised four days rest after his discharge from the hospital. There could be no presumption that after his transfer, he pretended to be ill with a view to while away time and file a petition with a view to seek a stay order. The reality of the petitioner being ill cannot be ruled out particularly when there is a documentary piece of evidence to prove that he was hospitalized in district Hospital, Kanpur from 23rd August, 2002 to 24th August, 2002 and treated of the ailment he was suffering from. He then filed this petition for redressal of his grievance. It was quite natural for him as he got his son admitted in Class IX and deposited his admission and various other fees amounting to Rs. 16,935/ -. The entire sum would have gone waste had he been forced to withdraw his son from Sir Padampat Singhania Education Centre, Kamla nagar, Kanpur and proceed to Gorakhpur and in that eventuality what would have happened to the education of the child in the light of the petitioners five more transfers, could be a guess or an imaginary calculation. The suspension order was, therefore, calculated to be a severe blow upon the petitioner and his family members. It amounted to his utter harassment. Considering all these aspects of the matter in view, the suspension order deserved to be quashed. The suspension order was, therefore, calculated to be a severe blow upon the petitioner and his family members. It amounted to his utter harassment. Considering all these aspects of the matter in view, the suspension order deserved to be quashed. ( 20 ) THE contention putforward on behalf of the G. R. P. Headquarters that the petitioners posting was contrary to the provisions of para 524 of the Police Regulations is absolutely devoid of merit as the petitioner was directed to be transferred by all the higher important authorities, namely, D. I. G. , I. G and the chief Minister. According to the provisions, a police official can be transferred to any other branch with prior approval of the inspector General. In the case in hand, the Additional Director general (Railways) endorsed the petitioners transfer order and therefore, the formalities required under the aforesaid regulation were fulfilled. In other words, all the relevant authorities from top to bottom issued and endorsed the transfer orders of the petitioner and thus conformed to the provisions of Regulation 524. ( 21 ) THE petitioner has also questioned the propriety and validity of the order dated 19th November, 2003 (Annexure SCA-1) whereby the posting of an Inspector in G. R. P. has been curtailed from six years to three years. It is no doubt true that the Government or senior authorities of the police department can formulate a policy regarding posting of an Inspector but such a policy has to stand the test of reasonableness and equality before law. It cannot be discriminatory or arbitrary or unreasonable. The said order appears to indicate that the police of G. R. P. was equated with civil police and therefore, the period of posting in G. R. P. for the police personnel holding the rank of Inspector was fixed to be as six years. This period was curtailed arbitrarily by virtue of the said letter without disclosing any plausible reason as to why the police of G. R. P. would not be considered to be equal to that of civil police. In that letter, it was simply mentioned that the long period of six years posting in G. R. P. is not practicable. What caused impediment in practicability has not been disclosed at all? No other rhyme or reason has been revealed for reduction of the posting period in G. R. P. from six to three years. In that letter, it was simply mentioned that the long period of six years posting in G. R. P. is not practicable. What caused impediment in practicability has not been disclosed at all? No other rhyme or reason has been revealed for reduction of the posting period in G. R. P. from six to three years. The petitioners contention is that such a policy has been evolved with a view to frame him and revert him to civil police, as a consequence the post he is holding at Moghalsarai would fall facant for accommodating another Inspector as recited in the Radiogram dated 6th October, 2003 of Shri Shailendra Sagar, Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U. P. , Lucknow. The petitioner was transferred from the post of Inspector, G. R. P. Mughalsarai where he was serving at present and the Additional Director General (Railways)was directed to relive him at once, irrespective of the fact that there was in vogue a stay order duly issued by this Court on 7th July, 2003. It would be relevant to mention that in July, 2003, he was directed to be transferred from Moghalsarai to the Anti-corruption cell at Lucknow. Thus, in my view the policy is aimed at the petitioner. The contention of learned Additional Advocate General that the Court cannot question the propriety of a policy evolved by the Legislature as laid down by the Apex Court in state of himachal Pradesh and another v. Kailash Chand Mahajan and others [1992 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 351] is not acceptable as the facts of the said case were entirely different from the one in hand. In that case, the policy pertaining to the age of chairman of the State Electricity Board was framed by first the ordinance and then by the Act duly passed by the State legislature of Himachal Pradesh with the requisite sanction accorded by the State Governor. Here, in the case in hand, the policy has not been framed either by an Ordinance or by an act. The letter has been issued simply by the Additional Director general (Establishment), U. P. and has no reference to any ordinance or an Act. In any case, the said letter is a calculated move to aim at the petitioner. Here, in the case in hand, the policy has not been framed either by an Ordinance or by an act. The letter has been issued simply by the Additional Director general (Establishment), U. P. and has no reference to any ordinance or an Act. In any case, the said letter is a calculated move to aim at the petitioner. ( 22 ) KEEPING in view all the facts of this case, it may be observed that whenever a post of Inspector was required to be vacated, Shri prem Kumar Misra was the soft target - whether it was at Kanpur, allahabad, Lucknow or Moghalsarai. ( 23 ) HAVING regard to all these facts and circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the policy contained in Order dated 19th november, 2003 of Additional Director General (Establishment), u. P. being arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and calculatively evolved to hit the petitioner deserves to be quashed. However, the government would be free to legislate a policy by an Act or ordinance. Apart that the recitals of the letter curtailing the posting period of an Inspector in G. R. P. is contrary to the government Order dated 11th July, 1986. ( 24 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner also raised the issue regarding the age of the Inspector, who is proposed to be posted at Moghalsarai. However, since the said issue is not very relevant from the petitioners point of view, it may not be necessary for this Court to delve upon that issue. ( 25 ) THE long and short of the discussions made above is that the petitioner has fallen victim to the arbitrariness, unreasonableness and nepotism of the higher police authorities. In the result, his petition deserves to be allowed. ( 26 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioners transfer order dated 22nd August, 2002, suspension Order dated 26th August, 2002 and his transfer order dated 30th July, 2003 directing for his posting in Anti-corruption cell, Lucknow are hereby quashed. A writ of Certiorari is issued accordingly. The Order dated 19th November, 2003 issued by the additional Director General (Establishment) curtailing the posting period of an Inspector in G. R. P. is also quashed. A writ of Certiorari is issued accordingly. The Order dated 19th November, 2003 issued by the additional Director General (Establishment) curtailing the posting period of an Inspector in G. R. P. is also quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite-parties No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 to post the petitioner as Inspector at G. R. P. , Kanpur Nagar when the present incumbent quits. Unless he is allowed to join at kanpur, he shall not be disturbed from his present posting at moghalsarai. Once he joins at Kanpur, the authorities shall be free to post anyone at Moghalsarai. . .