JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of three writ petitions, which raise common question of facts and law, therefore, are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The petitioners who are recruited as Police Constable (Civil) by the respondents on different dates have challenged their transfer order transferring them from civil police to armed police and according to the statement made by the petitioner, the same is in contravention of Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations and cannot be done therefore, the order deserve to be quashed. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the provisions of Regulation 525, only those Constables of Civil Police can be transferred to Armed Police who have to their credit more than two years’ and less than ten years’ service with the prior permission of Deputy Inspector General of Police. It is submitted that meaning thereby the Civil Police Constable who has completed 10 years service cannot be transferred to armed police and any transfer contrary to the provisions of Regulation 525 is bad in law, arbitrary and illegal apart from being malafide. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon number of decisions of this Court. One of them is passed by Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44898 of 2006 decided on 25th August, 2006 wherein the Court relying upon the provisions of Regulation 525 has been pleased to allow the writ petition quashing the transfer order. The similar view is taken by Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54074 of 2006 decided on 27th September, 2006 and decision of Hon’ble Vineet Saran, J. reported in (2003) 3 UPLBEC 2038 ; CN 141 C.P. Kaushlesh Singh and others v. State of U.P. and another. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a decision of Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J. rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21713 of 2006, Ram Bilas Yadav v. State of U.P. and others. After placing the aforesaid decisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that being in the coordinate Bench of single Judge, should follow the decision of this Court delivered earlier in the cases referred to above, or in case, this Court do not agree, may refer the matter to the larger Bench. 4. After placing the aforesaid decisions, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that being in the coordinate Bench of single Judge, should follow the decision of this Court delivered earlier in the cases referred to above, or in case, this Court do not agree, may refer the matter to the larger Bench. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since the Apex Court in its recent decision reported in 2007 (1) SCC (sic) has held that the Government orders are issued for the guidance of the subordinate authorities. These are binding on the authorities but violation thereof cannot give any right to the petitioner to challenge it before the Court of law as the Government Orders are not enforceable through Court of law. On a query put by the Court as to whether the provisions of Regulation 525 have any statutory force, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these have statutory force. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to the directions issued by this Court in an earlier decision wherein this Court issued directions to the State Government to clarify the position regarding the provisions of Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations. 6. On this, respondents have again placed a Government Order whereby the respondents have directed the authorities to comply with the directions issued in Regulation 525 without any discrimination. 7. In this view of the matter learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed. 8. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulation and I should follow the decision of the learned single Judge referred to above. 9. Since the controversy stands covered by the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in its recent decision, I do not find it to be a fit case for reference to a larger Bench. 10. That during the preparation of the judgment, learned Standing Counsel has brought to my notice a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jasveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ESC 158 (SC) decided on 23rd January, 2008 wherein Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations have been interpreted by the Apex Court as under : “......525. Constable of less than two years’ service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed to the civil police or vice versa. Constable of less than two years’ service may be transferred by the Superintendent of Police from the armed to the civil police or vice versa. Foot Police constables may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request. Any civil police constable of more than two and less than ten years’ service may be transferred to the armed police and vice versa by the Superintendent of Police for a period not exceeding six months in any one year. All armed police constables of over two years’ service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years’ service may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General”. In all other cases for transfer of Police Officers from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires the sanction of the Inspector-General.” 11. Regulation 525 clearly contemplates that a constable of less tan two years’ service may be transferred from the armed to the civil police or vice versa by the Superintendent of Police Foot police may be transferred to the mounted police at their own request, any civil police constable of more than two and less than ten years’ service may be transferred to the armed police and vice versa by the Superintendent for a period not exceeding six months in any one year, all armed police constables of over two years’ service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years’ service may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General. Thus it is clear that the Superintendent of Police can transfer any constable from the armed police to the civil police and vice versa who have put in over two years and less than ten years’ service for a period not exceeding six months in any one year and armed police constables of over two years’ service and civil police constables of over two and under ten years’ service may be transferred to the other branch of the force for any period with the permission of the Deputy Inspector General. In all other cases the transfer of Police Officer from one branch of the force to another or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police requires sanction of the Inspector General. 12. Learned Counsel for the State of U.P. pointed out that Regulation 525 in first part puts a condition of more than two years but less than ten years of service whereas under the second part of the said Regulation a general power has been given for transfer of any police officer from one branch to another branch or from the police service of other Provinces to the Uttar Pradesh Police with the prior sanction of the Inspector General. 13. We regret to say that we do not agree with the submission of the learned Counsel for the State of U.P. Second part of Regulation 525 gives power of transfer in respect of a Police Officer and not a police constable. The police constable is covered by the first part of Regulation 525 and once there is a specific provision for transfer of constables in the first part of Regulation 525 then the second part of the said regulation cannot be said to deal with them. 14. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, in my opinion, since the transfer orders of the petitioners transferring them from Civil Police to Armed Police are contrary to the provisions of Regulation 525 of U.P. Police Regulations, therefore, deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed. All the three writ petitions are allowed. Parties shall bear their own costs. ————