JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri Nishant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner claims to be an Inspector of police at present posted within the district of Sonebhadra in the State of U.P.. He is aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2010 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Inspector General of Police (Establishment) in the office of Director General of Police, Lucknow. 3. Sri Nishant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same is in supersession of the directions issued by the State Government by the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 and as such is liable to be set aside. He also claims discrimination against the petitioner and states that the impugned order is illegal. Learned counsel has submitted that if the order passed by the respondent No. 3 is in violation of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 the same requires to be set aside inasmuch as the petitioner who is an Inspector of Police will face humiliation if he is compelled to work in a Police station under an officer junior to him and of the rank of Sub-Inspector of police. He has further stated that by the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 the respondent No. 3 has illegally directed the District Police Authorities to adopt the practice prevailing prior to the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 for the posting and appointment of Inspectors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in several writ petitions, interim orders have been passed by the Court holding prima facie that the impugned order is in supersession of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008. He refers to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 39853 of 2010 (Vijay Mall Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others). A perusal of the said interim order dated 12.7.2010 indicates that as an interim measure stay order was granted and the State Counsel was required to file counter-affidavit. 5. In the opinion of this Court, when the impugned order makes certain provision which are alleged by the petitioner to be in violation of the Government Order then the impugned order can be tested for such alleged violation when the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 is also available on record. 5. In the opinion of this Court, when the impugned order makes certain provision which are alleged by the petitioner to be in violation of the Government Order then the impugned order can be tested for such alleged violation when the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 is also available on record. More particularly when the State respondents have not prayed for time to file counter-affidavit and in fact have replied to the argument on the issue raised by the petitioner on the basis of record of the writ petition. Clearly no further facts are required to be pleaded by the State respondents either in support of or against the impugned order. 6. Insofar as the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is in supersession of the Government Order no counter-affidavit of the State respondents is required for adjudging the submission made by the petitioner which are solely based on annexures 1 and 2 to this writ petition. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in order to address the grievance raised by the petitioner, a perusal of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 would be necessary to understand the direction given by the State Government in the said Government Order. The Government Order dated 11.12.2008 is quoted hereunder : “la[;k&4146@8&iq0&1&08&120&08 izs"kd] js.kqdk dqekj] lfpo mRrj izns’k 'kkluA lsok esa] iqfyl egkfuns’kd] mRrj izns’k] y[kuÅA x`g ¼iqfyl½ vuqHkkx&1 y[kuÅ% fnukad 11 fnlEcj] 2008 fo"k;%& mRrj izns’k iqfyl dh fofHkUu 'kk[kkvksa esa iqfyl cy ds fu;ru gsrq ekudhdj.k dk fu/kkZj.k ,oa mDr vk/kkj ij inksa dk l`tuA egksn;] mi;ZqDr fo"k; ij eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ’k gqvk gS fd mRrj izns’k iqfyl vk;ksx o"kZ&1960 dh laLrqfr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij izns’k iqfyl ds fofHkUu laoxksZ gsrq in ds l`tu ds ekud fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s Fks rFkk rnuqlkj gh vc rd fofHkUu Js.kh ds in l`ftr fd;s tkrs jgs gSA o"kZ 1960 ds i’pkr izns’k dh dkuwu ,oa O;olk; o vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa vkewypwy ifjorZu gq;s gS rFkk iqfyl cy ds lEeq[k vusdks izdkj dh uohu pqukSfr;ka tSls ukjdksfVDl] vkradokn] uDlyokn] laxfBr vijk/k eq[; :i ls mHkj dj lkeus vk;h gSA 2. mDr pqukSfr;ksa ,oa orZeku ifjn`’; dks ns[krs gq, izns’k ds orZeku ifjos’k esa iqfyl cy ds u;s ekuohdj.k ds fu/kkZj.k ds laca/k esa eq[; lfpo dh v/;{krk esa ,d lfefr xfBr dh xbZ Fkh mDr lfefr }kjk vU; laLrqfr;ksa ds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh laLrqfr dh xbZ gS fd xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks= ds vf/kdrj Fkkuksa esa izHkkjh ds :i esa mi fujh{kd fu;qDr gksrs gS vkSj muds vèkhu Fkkus ij rSukr ofj"B mi fujh{kdksa dks dke djuk iMrk gS ftlls dk;Z iz.kkyh o vuq’kklu esa dfBukbZ mRiUu gksrh gS ,oa v/khuLFk ofj"B mi fujh{kd iw.kZ euks;ksx ds lkFk nkf;Ro dk lEiknu ugh djrs A 3. vr% 'kklu }kjk eq[; lfpo lfefr dh laLrqfr;ksa fnukad 11-08-2008 ,oa fnukad 21-8-2008 ds n`f"Vxr izosn’k ds lHkh Fkkuksa dks fujh{kd Lrj ds Fkkuksa esa ifjofrZr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vuqjks/k gS fd d`i;k rnuqlkj vko’;d dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr djus dk d"V djsa A 4- mDr vkns’k foRr foHkkx ds v’kkldh; vkns’k la[;k&bZ&12&2047¼1½@nl&08 fnukad 11-12-2008 esa izkIr mudh lgefr ls fuxZr fd;s tk jgs gSA Hkonh;] js.kqdk dqekj lfpoA” 8. A perusal of the aforementioned Government Order indicates that the Government has found several irregularities in posting of Police Officers in police stations of the rural areas and urban areas where a Sub-Inspector of Police is appointed as Incharge of the Police Station and a Senior Sub-Inspector, who is senior to a Sub-Inspector is posted at the same Police Station and hence has to work under his junior. The Government, therefore, as a policy decided to upgrade the police stations to be police station of the grade of Inspector. For the said purpose approval of the Finance Department was taken. The aforesaid Government Order appears to have been passed on the recommendations of a Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary of the State. Suitable directions have been issued by the Government to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow for necessary compliance. 9. The impugned order dated 10.6.2010 has been passed by the respondent No. 3 to all the Regional Level Police Authorities. Suitable directions have been issued by the Government to the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow for necessary compliance. 9. The impugned order dated 10.6.2010 has been passed by the respondent No. 3 to all the Regional Level Police Authorities. The said order is quoted hereunder : “QSDl@rRdky@vktgh eq[;ky; iqfyl egkfuns’kd mRrj izns’kA 1& fryd ekxZ y[kuÅ&226001 la[;k&Mh th&pkj&101¼14½ 2010 fnukad@y[kuÅ@twu 10] 2010 lsok esa] leLr ifj{ksf=; iqfyl egkfujh{kd@mi egkfujh{kd] mRrj izns’kA fo"k;%&fujh{kd Lrj ds Fkkuksa ij izHkkjh fujh{kd fu;qDr fd;s tkus ds lEcU/k esaA egksn;] Ñi;k mijksDr fo"k;d bl eq[;ky; ds lekad i= fnukad -6-2010 dk lanHkZ x`g.k djsaA 2- iz’uxr izdj.k esa iqu% voxr djkuk gS fd iqfyl egkfujh{kd mRrj izns’k ds laKku esa vk;k gS fd vHkh Hkh izns’k ds dfri; tuinksa esa dqN Fkkuksa ij Fkkuk/;{kksa@izHkkjh fujh{kdksa dks fu;qDr ds lEcU/k esa vfu;ferrk,a cjrrs gq;s fujh{kd Lrj ds Fkkus ij Fkkukè;{k ,oa Fkkuk/;{k Lrj ds Fkkuksa ij izHkkjh fujh{kd dks fu;qDr j[kk x;k gS rFkk dbZ tuinksa esa fujh{kdks dh i;kZIr miyC/krk ds ckotwn Hkh mUgsa Fkkuks dk izHkkj ugh fn;k x;k gSA 3- tSlk fd vki voxr gS fd foxr esa m0iz0 'kklu }kjk izns’kh; tuinksa ds lHkh Fkkuks dks fujh{kd Lrj dk Fkkuk ?kksf"kr djrs gq;s Fkkuksa esa fujh{kd Lrj ds dkfeZdksa dh fu;qfDr dh vis{kk dh x;h gSA orZeku esa izns’k esa fujh{kdksa ds dkQh in fjDr gS ftu ij izksUufr dh dk;Zokgh izpfyr gSA 4- iz’uxr fo"k; esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd tuinh; iqfyl esa fujh{kd Lrj ij Fkkuks ds iwoZ LohÑr fu;ru ds lkis{k vf/kdka’k tuinksa esa fujh{kdks dh fu;qfDr dh x;h gS] fdUrq blds ckotwn tuinh; vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dfri; fujh{kdks dks Fkkus dk izHkkj ugh fn;k x;k gSA rFkk fujh{kdks ds LFkku ij Fkkuk/;{kksa dks izHkkjh cuk;s tkus esa izkFkfedrk iznku dh x;h gSA 5- mijksDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds n`f"Vxr iqfyl egkfuns’kd] mRrj izns’k }kjk iqu% viuksa vizlUurk O;Dr djrs gq, lHkh ifj{ks=h; iqfyl egkfujh{kd@miegkfujh{kdksa dks fufnZ"V fd;s tkus ds funZs’k fn; x;s gS fd og vius v/khu ifj{ks= ds tuinksa ds Fkkuksa essa iwoZ O;oLFkk ds vuq:i fujh{kd Lrj ds Fkkus ij izHkkjh fujh{kd rFkk Fkkuk/;{k Lrj ds Fkkuksa ij Fkkuk/;{k dh fu;qfDr lqfuf’pr djk;s rFkk bl vk’k; dk izek.k i= Hkh izsf"kr djsa fd ifj{ks= ds fdlh tuin ds Fkkuksa ij izHkkjh fujh{kdksa@Fkkuk/;{kksa dh fu;qfDr esa vc bl izdkj dh dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugh jg x;h gS blds vfrfjDr tuinksa esa fu;qDr@miyCèk fujh{kdksa ds dk;Z vkpj.k dh leh{kk dj yh tk; rFkk leh{kksijkUr ;fn vki ;g le>rs gS fd dksbZ fujh{kd tuinh; iqfyl gsrq ;ksX; ugh gS rks mls fpfUgr djrs gq, mlds lsok fooj.k viuh lqLi"V vfHker@fVIi.kh ds lkFk bl eq[;ky; dks miyC/k djk ns rkfd rnuqlkj fpfUgr fd;s x;s fujh{kdksa dks fdlh vU; 'kk[kk@bdkbZ esa fu;qDr djus ij fopkj fd;k tk ldsa A 6- vr% funs’kkuqlkj vuqjks/k gS fd Ñi;k iz’uxr izdj.k esa iqfyl egkfujh{kd mRrj izns’k }kjk fn;s x;s funsZ’kks ds vuqlkj dk;Zokgh lqfuf’pr djkrs gq, viuh vuqikyu vk[;k@izek.k i= foyEcre fnukad 20-6-2010 rd izR;sd n’kk esa eq[;ky; dks miyCèk djkuk lqfuf’pr djsa A g0v0@& ¼fot; flag½ iqfyl egkfujh{kd LFkkiuk mRrj izns’k” 10. A perusal of the above quoted order indicates that the subject matter is posting of Inspector of Police as Incharge of Inspector Grade Police Stations. The respondent No. 3 has stated that several irregularities in posting of Incharge of Police Stations in various districts have come to light. He states that there are several posts of Inspector of Police lying vacant in the State and proceedings for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police are being undertaken by the State. He further found that in some districts there are sufficient number of Inspectors of Police and even then they are not being given charge of the Police Stations. Consequently, he states that when the State Government has upgraded the Police Stations to be of the grade of Inspector then charge of such Police Stations should be given to an Inspector of Police. The order expresses its doubts regarding various districts where although Inspectors of Police are available but they have not been given charge of the Police Station and in their place, the Station Officer is continuing to hold charge. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has clarified that Station Officer was of the rank of a Sub-Inspector prior to passing of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 i.e. prior to up gradation of Police Stations to Inspector Grade. 12. The impugned order further states that the Director General of Police has issued directions to all the District Police Authorities to ensure that an Inspector of Police is made Incharge of an Inspector Grade Police Station and a Station Officer be made Incharge of a Sub-Inspector Level Police Station. 13. It is here that learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the direction issued by the respondent No. 3 is in supersession of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 inasmuch as when all the Police Stations have been upgraded to be Police Stations of the Inspectors Grade, then a Sub-Inspector cannot hold charge of such Police Station. He has further submitted that in the recitation made in the impugned order, it is clearly provided that the practice prevailing earlier should continue. He states that the respondent No. 3, therefore, has superseded the Government Order where only an Inspector could hold charge of an Inspector Grade Police Station. 14. The aforesaid submission requires to be tested on the provision made in the impugned order. He states that the respondent No. 3, therefore, has superseded the Government Order where only an Inspector could hold charge of an Inspector Grade Police Station. 14. The aforesaid submission requires to be tested on the provision made in the impugned order. The impugned order clearly states that there are several posts of Inspectors lying vacant in the State of U.P. and proceedings for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police are being undertaken. It also states that in some districts Inspectors of Police are available but they are not being given charge of the Police Stations. These are two reasons given in the impugned order which necessitated the respondent No. 3 to issue directions, the reasons being one that there are several vacancies on the post of Inspector of Police in the State and second that in some districts Inspectors of Police have not been given charge of the Police Station. 15. In the light of the aforesaid two reasons given in the impugned order, the respondent No. 3 has provided that all Inspector Grade Police Stations shall be in the charge of Inspector of Police, in those districts where Inspectors of Police are available. 16. The second direction given in the impugned order is that in those Police Stations where Sub-Inspector is Incharge, the Sub-Inspector shall continue to hold charge as was the practice earlier. This direction has to be read with reason given in the impugned order before it can be held that it is in supersession of the Government Order dated 11.12.2008. 17. The impugned order clearly states that there are several posts of Inspector of Police lying vacant in the State of U.P. Therefore, a Police Station which was earlier in the charge of a Sub-Inspector would continue to be as such in case there is no Inspector of Police available. The reference to the practice adopted earlier is with relation to such districts where Inspectors of Police are not available to be given charge of the Police Station. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 has made a provision for such a situation and has directed that the Sub-Inspector shall continue to hold charge of such Police Station in the absence of availability of Inspector of Police. 18. The impugned order clearly indicates that there is a dearth in the cadre strength of Inspector of Police. Consequently, the respondent No. 3 has made a provision for such a situation and has directed that the Sub-Inspector shall continue to hold charge of such Police Station in the absence of availability of Inspector of Police. 18. The impugned order clearly indicates that there is a dearth in the cadre strength of Inspector of Police. It is this reason given in the impugned order wherefore arrangement of continuing of Sub-Inspector of Police as Incharge of some Police Stations has been made. The reason for issuing such a direction is clearly mentioned and the direction is qualified by the reason. 19. Consequently, although the direction of the State Government has upgraded all the Police Stations to the level of Inspector Grade Police Stations but in the absence of availability of Inspectors of Police in their cadre the Police Stations have to be manned by an Incharge and due to non availability of sufficient number of Inspectors of Police some Police Stations have been directed to continue in the charge of a Sub-Inspector of Police as was being done earlier. 20. Therefore, it is not a case where the respondent No. 3 has superseded the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 but it is a case where the respondent No. 3 has directed ensuring compliance of the Government Order and has made arrangement for those Police Stations where Inspectors of Police are not available due to vacancy lying on the posts of Inspector of Police in the cadre and since a police station has to be under an Incharge he has directed the Officers next below in hierarchy to hold charge of such Police Station. It goes without saying that upon availability of Inspectors of Police either by recruitment or promotion they shall be entitled to hold charge of the Police Stations by virtue of the policy contained in the Government Order. 21. Moreover, the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 was contemplating a different situation. It found that Senior Sub-Inspectors were working under Sub-Inspectors. It is for this reason that recommendation was made to upgrade the Police Station to the level of Inspector Grade Police Stations so that the Senior must not be compelled to work under his junior. In light of the Government Order, the impugned order does not deal with Sub-Inspectors or Senior Sub-Inspectors but it deals with the policy of posting of Inspectors of Police as Incharge of Police Stations. In light of the Government Order, the impugned order does not deal with Sub-Inspectors or Senior Sub-Inspectors but it deals with the policy of posting of Inspectors of Police as Incharge of Police Stations. Where no Inspectors of Police are available, the Sub-Inspectors are required to continue to hold charge of the Police Station. 22. Consequently, an arrangement to man Police Stations made by the respondent No. 3 due to dearth in the strength of Inspector cadre cannot be interpreted to mean that the respondent No. 3 has superseded the Government Order dated 11.12.2008 by the impugned order. 23. There is another aspect of the matter which requires consideration. The petitioner who claims to be an Inspector has made apprehension that he is likely to be transferred from Sonebhadra. It is not his case that he has come to this Court challenging an order of transfer. This writ petition appears to have been filed on an apprehension of the petitioner that he will be transferred. Such apprehension is not borne out from the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner cannot succeed in challenging the impugned order for the ground taken by him in this writ petition. 24. For the reasons mentioned above it is held that the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 does not in any manner supersede the Government Order dated 11.12.2008. In fact the respondent No. 3 has directed compliance of the policy of the Government. The shortage of personal in the cadre of Inspectors of Police necessitated making of a provision to have an Incharge Officer at Police Stations. There is no averment or plea in this writ petition to say that although an Inspector of Police is available even then a Police Station has been given in the charge of a Sub-Inspector. 25. This writ petition appears to have been filed only due to an unfounded apprehension and on a total misreading of the impugned order in relation to the Policy of the State Government as brought out in the Government Order dated 11.12.2008. 26. There is no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. ————