Judgment G.B. Shah, J.—Heard the learned Advocate Mr AS Supehia for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr LR Pujari for the respondents. 2. The main issue involved in this petition is whether the order of out of district transfer dated 14.1.1991 at Annexure ‘A’ page No. 9 was at the request of the petitioner at his cost and loss of seniority or it was a transfer in the interest of administration ? 3. The uncontroversial facts between the parties of these proceedings are as under: The petitioner was initially appointed on 11.1.1968 as Armed Constable in State Reserve Police, Group No. 8, Gondal. In the year 1972 the petitioner was appointed as Horseman in the Mounted Unit of Police Department in Rajkot District under the official order. In the year 1974 the petitioner came to be appointed as Driver on temporary basis and in 1976 after undergoing the necessary training the petitioner was appointed as Driver to Ahmedabad District from Rajkot. In the year 1988-89 there was bifurcation of Ahmedabad District into Ahmedabad (Rural) and Gandhinagar Districts and the petitioner was continued in Ahmedabad (Rural) District. 3.1. Vide order dated 14.2.1991 Annexure ‘A’ page No. 9, the petitioner came to be transferred to Gandhinagar District. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of 2nd Grade Head Constable vide order dated 1.12.1992 and vide order dated 9.9.1996 he was again promoted to the post of 1st grade Head Constable. On 3.7.1999 the petitioner was reverted to the post of 2nd grade Head Constable and posted as such w.e.f. 24.9.1998 meaning thereby the petitioner would stand promoted as 2nd Grade Head Constable from 24.9.1998 instead of his actual two promotions dated 1.2.1992 and 9.9.1996 referred above. This order was passed on assumption that the aforesaid transfer order dated 14.2.1991 was passed on request of the petitioner by losing his seniority. His seniority is counted from 24.2.1991 when he has joined his service at Gandhinagar and not from 3.12.1976 i.e. the date on which he was confirmed as Driver. The petitioner made representation to respondent No. 2 on 6.7.1999 pointing out that the transfer order dated 14.2.1991 was not made at his request. Respondent No. 2 conveyed to the petitioner on 7.4.2000 giving option either to stay in Gandhinagar or to go back to Ahmedabad (Rural) at his original seniority. The petitioner made representation to respondent No. 2 on 6.7.1999 pointing out that the transfer order dated 14.2.1991 was not made at his request. Respondent No. 2 conveyed to the petitioner on 7.4.2000 giving option either to stay in Gandhinagar or to go back to Ahmedabad (Rural) at his original seniority. By letter dated 26.4.2000 the petitioner represented that it was unreasonable to ask for option after 9 years of service in Gandhinagar district particularly when he was given two promotions. He therefore requested that he should be given all the benefits more particularly when his transfer on 14.2.1991 was on administrative grounds. After giving personal hearing to the petitioner, vide order dated 17.11.2000, the petitioner was relieved and transferred to Ahmedabad (Rural). Against the orders dated 3.7.1999 – Annexure ‘D’ and another order dated 17.11.2000 – Annexure ‘J’, the petitioner has filed the present Special Civil Application praying that;— “19 (A) Quashing and setting aside the order of reversion dated 3.7.1999 Annexure ‘D’) and order dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure ‘J’) and to direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as 1st grade Head Constable throughout and to pay all the consequential benefits accordingly with 12% interest. (B) If prayer (A) cannot and is not granted then the respondent No. 3 may be directed to treat the petitioner as having been promoted in Ahmedabad (Rural) District from the date of his next junior is promoted, with the pay protection to the petitioner of the post of First Grade Head Constable as on 17.11.2000. [C] During the pendency and final disposal of this petition the implementation of the order dated 17.11.2000 (Annexure ‘J’) may be stayed and respondent No. 2 may be directed to allow the petitioner to work under him as First Grade Head Constable.” 4. Learned AGP Mr L R Pujari for the respondents has drawn my attention to the letter Annexure R-1 dated 22.1.1991 written by Hon’ble Minister addressed to the Director General and Inspector General of Police and submitted that as mentioned therein, the petitioner’s children were studying in Gandhinagar and, therefore, on request made by the petitioner through the Hon’ble Minister, he was transferred from Ahmedabad (Rural) to Gandhinagar. Referring the same it is clear that in pursuance of the aforesaid letter, Director General of Police, Gujarat had transferred the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner has joined his service at Gandhinagar w.e.f. 24.2.1991 and thus though in the transfer order it was not stated that the transfer was made as per the request made by the petitioner through Hon’ble Minister, thereafter by order dated 3.7.1999 the petitioner came to be reverted to the post of Head Constable Grade II. This order is passed on the footing that the seniority of the petitioner would be counted from 24.2.1991 when he has joined his service at Gandhinagar and not from 3.12.1976, the date on which the petitioner was confirmed as Driver. After the said clarification from the Director General of Police, Gandhinagar, Superintendent of Police, Gandhinagar vide order dated 3.7.1999 reverting the petitioner from the post of Grade I Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector to Grade II Head Constable w.e.f. 24.9.1998 considering his seniority from the date of his joining Gandhinagar office. 5. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he never made any request either orally or in writing for his transfer out of district or to Gandhinagar district to anybody. He has further submitted that he is not aware of the letter dated 22.1.1991 at Annexure R-1 received by the Director General of Police from the Minister. He has lastly stated in his rejoinder-affidavit that the order of transfer dated 14.2.1991 does not state that the transfer was made at his request. On the contrary he was paid TA/DA on the footing that the said transfer was made in public interest, and, therefore, he had been given all the benefits on the ground that it was a transfer in public interest. 6. I have considered the above referred rival submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties. It is the fact that in the transfer order dated 14.2.1991 – Annexure ‘A’ page No. 9, it is not stated that the same was made as per the request of the petitioner. As per the case of the respondents, the then Hon’ble Minister addressed a letter Annexure R-1 dated 22.1.1991 to the Director General and Inspector General of Police favouring the petitioner and accordingly the request made by the petitioner through the Minister he was transferred from Ahmedabad (Rural) to Gandhinagar. As per the case of the respondents, the then Hon’ble Minister addressed a letter Annexure R-1 dated 22.1.1991 to the Director General and Inspector General of Police favouring the petitioner and accordingly the request made by the petitioner through the Minister he was transferred from Ahmedabad (Rural) to Gandhinagar. On oath the petitioner has stated that he is not aware of the letter dated 22.1.1991 written by the Hon’ble Minister referred above and has further stated that he has never made any request either orally or in writing for his transfer out of district or to Gandhinagar district to anybody. 6.1. In the police department, it is the settled position that if any Police Constable or Head Constable makes demand in respect of his mutual transfer from one district to another district or one way transfer out of his District on his request, the prescribed application is required to be effected between the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police concerned as mentioned in Rule 154 (i) of the Police Manual. Moreover, as laid down in Rule 154 (6) of the Police Manual, whenever such an application is received from a Government servant requesting for his transfer, the said application should be entered into the Register to be maintained in all offices in Form No. 8 in Appendix-I and the said Register should also to be put up from time to time before the competent authority who should consider the applications entered in such register whenever the transfers are being considered. 6.2. In the case on hand, it has come on record that the above referred prescribed procedure was not carried out in the transfer made of the petitioner. Now the question to be decided is whether the Hon’ble Minister has legally any right to interfere with or request for a transfer of a Police Constable or Head Constable as is done in the case on hand and the document whereof is at Annexure R-1 dated 22.1.1991. Moreover, if at all the Minister made any request then what should be the effect of the same more particularly can it be said that it is a transfer made on request by the petitioner. Rule 154 (5) of the Police Manual reads as under: “(5) Applications from the relatives of Policemen or outsiders, requesting Government on their behalf for transfers should be discouraged. Rule 154 (5) of the Police Manual reads as under: “(5) Applications from the relatives of Policemen or outsiders, requesting Government on their behalf for transfers should be discouraged. Superintendents of Police should, however, while ordering the transfers of Constables, give sympathetic consideration to genuine domestic difficulties”. In the case on hand, the petitioner’s children were studying in Gandhinagar and, therefore, on his alleged request to the Hon’ble Minister, the letter dated 22.1.1991 Annexure R-1 was written by the Minister. Even if it is presumed as true then also as per the above referred Rule, in my view the Minister should have restrained himself from favouring or disfavouring transfer aspect in police department and as such the duty cast upon the Rule referred above that in the transfer matter, the Government should discourage such practice and they should not interfere with the transfer which is entirely in the domain of superintendent of Police who will definitely consider the genuine domestic difficulties while ordering transfers of Constables. Thus, in my view, the respondents have failed to prove that on request made by the petitioner through Hon’ble Minister, he was transferred from Ahmedabad Rural to Gandhinagar. In fact the transfer order dated 14.2.1991 at Annexure ‘A’ page No. 9 speaks otherwise. If we consider the fact that on request made by the petitioner to the Hon’ble Minister, the Minister has written letter dated 22.1.1991 Annexure R-1 and favoured the petitioner then also the said action is not only against the Rules but against violation of the prescribed procedure as referred above and in my view, legally the said action of the Hon’ble Minister will not stand for a second. Moreover, the petitioner had been given all the benefits as if he was transferred on 14.2.1991 on administrative grounds. Thereafter the two promotions vide order dated 1.12.1992 and 9.9.1996 as referred above were also given considering the fact that the transfer order dated 14.2.1991 was made on administrative grounds. 7. Learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that respondent No. 2 conveyed the petitioner on 7.4.2000 giving option either to stay in Gandhinagar or to go back to Ahmedabad (Rural) at his original seniority, is nothing but an unreasonable action to ask for option after 9 years of service in Gandhinagar, more particularly when he was given two promotions and I find myself in agreement with the same. Under the circumstances, this Special Civil Application No. 11948 of 2000 is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The order of reversion dated 3.7.1999 Annexure ‘D’ and the order dated 17.11.2000 Annexure ‘J’ are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as 1st Grade Head Constable throughout from the date he has received promotion as 1st Grade Head Constable and to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P