Allowed

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2025WRIA/7604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders transferring a Constable Driver. Relying on a prior judgment distinguishing the Constable Driver cadre from PAC constables under the Motor Transport Rules 2015, the Court quashed the impugned transfer orders as without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 05.11.2022 and 08.11.2022 quashed by writ of certiorari. Petitioner entitled to benefits under prior judgment.

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash Vs State of U.P… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 7604 of 2022

¶3

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi, Arjun Singh Yadav, Rama Nand Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 8

¶10

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

¶12

Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging orders dated 05.11.2022 and 08.11.2022 transferring petitioner from the post of Constable (Driver), 26th Battalion P.A.C., Gorakhpur to Second Battalion P.A.C. Sitapur as well as seeking direction to authority concerned to allow him to continue to work at his present place of posting.

¶13

The dispute in the present writ petition pertains to transfer of petitioner by P.A.C. whereas petitioner claims to be Constable (Driver) in the U.P. Police Logistics Department.

¶14

The aforesaid issue has already been decided by this Court in a bunch of petitions leading being Writ - A No. - 6915 of 2025 (Raghvendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) vide judgment and order dated 03.09.2025. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:-

¶15

"18. In view of the discussions made herein above and upon perusal of the various Rules applicable to the PAC as well as the cadre of Motor Transport Department of Police, it is evident that cadre of Constable Drivers constitutes an entirely separate cadre from that of Constables in the PAC. It is also evident that post of Constable Drivers does not come within purview of the PAC Establishment at all after the advent of the 'Motor Transport Rules 2015'. In such circumstances, it is also evident that Police Establishment Board of the PAC would not have any power or jurisdiction over transfer of Constable Drivers in Motor Transport Department of Police.

¶16

19. Once the statutory rules do not include the cadre of Constable Drivers and Head Constables within

¶17

WRIA No. 7604 of 2022

¶18

¶19

purview of the PAC, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Director General of Police, cannot by administrative instructions supersede specific statutory rules by conferring powers upon an organization which otherwise does not have any power over the cadre of Motor Transport Department of Police. The order dated 22.3.2024 issued by the office of Director General of Police, therefore, is held to be contrary to the provisions of the 'Motor Transport Rules 2015'.

¶20

20. Since it is quite evident that impugned orders have been passed by the PAC Establishment Board, pertaining to transfers of Constable Drivers, the same are, therefore, held to be without jurisdiction and impugned orders dated 12.6.2025 and 15.6.2025 are hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari."

¶21

In view thereof, since aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders 05.11.2022 and 08.11.2022 stands quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari.

¶22

Petitioner shall be entitled to benefits indicated in judgment and order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Writ - A No. - 6915 of 2025 (Raghvendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others).

¶23

The petition as such stands allowed.

¶24

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶25

September 18, 2025

¶26

kvg/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pno. No. 060490373 Ved Prakash v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Dept. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuradha Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Med. Health Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Anup Kumar Kaul Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Ramesh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Rural Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Parmanand vs Honble High Court Judicature Thru. Registrar General and 5 Others

Durgesh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Excise Lko. and 2 Others

Gaurav Saxena vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sinchai Evam Jal Sansadhan U.P. Lko. and Others