JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against certain orders dated 20. 2. 1987 (Annexures IX, X XI xii) passed by the deputy General Manager (P) U. P. State Road Transport corporation, respondent no. 2, transferring the petitioners nos. 2 to 11 from Azamgarh Region to different regions such as Tanakpur, Naintial dehradun etc. 2. The validity of these transfers has been mainly assailed on the ground that they are in violation of certain policy decisions of the Government regulating transfers, which are contained in Annexures XIII to XV which same have also been adopted by the Corporation. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders of transfers which have been made on administrative grounds. The Government instructions contained in the above mentioned Government orders are merely guidelines regulating transfers of employees and they do not have the force of amending conditions of service of the employees. These instructions are generally to be followed, but it does not mean that an employee cannot be transferred otherwise than in accordance with general instructions contained in these government orders if exigencies of service require so, or if he is required to be transferred on administrative reasons. In the impugned orders themselves, it has been mentioned that the transfers had been made on administrative grounds. Consequently we are not inclined to interfere with these orders. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'comptroller and Auditor General of india v. K. S. Jagannathan and another, (1986) All. I S L. J. (Vol. II) page 1. in which it was held that the high Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has the power to issue a writ of mandamus or pass orders or give necessary directions where government or public authority has failed to exercise or wrongly exercised directions conferred upon it by Statute or a Rule or Policy decision of the Government. This decision is not relevant, because it does not deal with the point at issue. On the other hand, a similar matter of transfer in violation of government instructions came up before Hon'ble supreme Court in 'shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director Health service, Patna, A. I. R. 1981 S. C 1577. This decision is not relevant, because it does not deal with the point at issue. On the other hand, a similar matter of transfer in violation of government instructions came up before Hon'ble supreme Court in 'shanti Kumari v. Regional Deputy Director Health service, Patna, A. I. R. 1981 S. C 1577. in which it was observed : "transfer of a government servant may be due to exigencies of service or due to administrative reason. The Courts cannot interfere in such matters. Shri Grover, learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the impugned order was in breach of the government instructions with regard to transfers in the Health department. If that be so, the authorities will look into the matter and redress the grievance of the appellant." 4. As the impugned order themselves show that the petitioners were transferred on administrative grounds, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.