JUDGMENT J.K. Mathur, J. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered by S.C. Mathur J. dismissing writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is serving in Army Service Corps as Lt. Col. and was posted as such at Lucknow in October, 1989. He is due to retire after about three years and proposes to settle at Lucknow after retirement. According to him an officer is entitled to one posting of his choice during his career. He purchased a plot at Lucknow and started constructing a house. He made a request for continuance in the present assignment, undertaking that this be considered as his posting. It was accepted and he was permitted to continue to be at Lucknow till October, 1992. However he has been transferred and has to report at the proposed place of posting by 151 1992. This order was challenged on a number of grounds, including the ones that it was against transfer policy, that the posting is against the advice of the Medical Board, that the opposite parties are estopped from transferring him when there is no administrative exigency and that it is violative of principles of natural justice. 3. The petition was heard at the stage of admission, counsel having appeared for opposite parties, and dismissed in limine, by a detailed order, negating all the aforesaid pleas raised by the petitioner. 4. This appeal has been pressed mainly on the ground that the order was violative of the policy that he could not be posted to forward areas due to his low medical category, having very weak vision, and in any case his representation ought to be considered before the impugned movement order is given effect to. 5. Sri K.P. Nag appearing on behalf of respondent, has challenged the maintainability of the appeal also. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.N. Trivedi and Sri K.D. Nag appearing for respondents at length and the appeal is being finally decided at this stage. The objection to the maintainability of a special appeal is not tenable. 7. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was established by a Letters Patent issued on 1731866. Clause 10 of this Letters Patent provided for an appeal against certain decisions of a single judge in the following terms: 10. The objection to the maintainability of a special appeal is not tenable. 7. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was established by a Letters Patent issued on 1731866. Clause 10 of this Letters Patent provided for an appeal against certain decisions of a single judge in the following terms: 10. And We do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Allahabad from the judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of Criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge of the said High Court of the Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Govt. of India Act, made on or after the first day of February one thousand nine hundred and twenty nine in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to us, Our Heirs or Successors or our of Their Privy Council, as hereinafter provided. In its terms a judgment of a single judge can be challenged in appeal to the High Court, except where such a judgment has been passed: (i) in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, unless declared fit for such appeal by single judge. (ii) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, (iii) being a sentence or order passed under the provision of S. 107 of the Government of India Act: or (iv) in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 8. (ii) in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, (iii) being a sentence or order passed under the provision of S. 107 of the Government of India Act: or (iv) in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. 8. The United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order passed in 1948 amalgamated the Chief Court of Oudh and the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to constitute High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 9. Clause 7 of this order preserved the original, appellate and other jurisdiction exercisable by either of the existing courts on the date of the amalgamation order, while clause 17 repealed the letters patent of 17th March, 1966. 10. Thus even after the repeal of the Letters Patent the appeal against the judgment of Single Judge to the extent maintainable under the Setter patent, continued to be maintainable as component of the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. 11. The jurisdiction of High Court exercised before coming in force of the Constitution was seemed for subsequent exercise by Article 225 of the Constitution. Maintainability of such appeal, in more restricted area was also provided for in the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. 12. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the aforesaid Rules provides as follows: I. Special appeal An appeal shall lie to the court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appeal late jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the Superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction (or in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award (a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any Officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one judge.) 13. In addition to excluding judgments rendered by a single judge in of appellate,, revisional and criminal jurisdiction from the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court, it excluded the maintainability of appeal against judgment of a single judge passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, (A) in respect of any order, or judgment or award passed by (a) a tribunal, (b) a court, or (c) a statutory arbitrator, Such order, judgment or award having been made in exercise of jurisdic1 tion under any U.P. Act, or Central Act, in respect of any matter enumerated in the State List or Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, and (B) in respect of any order or judgment or award of a, the Government b, Officer, or c, Authority made in exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any Act, State or Central, in respect of a matter in any of the aforesaid lists. 14. The area of decisions amenable to special appeals was further narrowed by the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals), of 1962, 15. Initially, by the provisions of Sec. 3, it excluded the judgment of single judge rendered in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, in respect of a decree or order made by a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court. 16. Section 4 was added in 1972. It excluded the judgment of single judge made in respect of the decisions of Board of Revenue, made under Land Revenue Act, U.P. Tenancy Act, Z.A. and L.R, Act, Jaunsar Bawar Z.A. and L.R. Act or Kunaun and Uttarakhand Z.A. and L.R. Act and ones made by Director of Consolidation or any other officer exercising his powers under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, from appellate jurisdiction of the court. 17. In Act 31 of 1975 Section 5 was added to exclude the judgments and orders passed in exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of appellate or revisional orders passed by District Judge, Additional District Judge, Civil Judge, or Additional Civil Judge under any U.P. Act, or Central Act as amended in U.P. The provisions of this Act were made to be effective notwithstanding anything contained in clause 7 or clause 17 of the Amalgamation order. 18. 18. As a result if any order falls within any of the exceptions contained in Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, or in Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Act XIV of 1962, as amended, no special appeal would lie. A judgment or order of a single judge not falling in any of these exceptions would be appealable before the High Court. 19. This question was also considered in a full bench decision in the case of the Notified Area Committee and another v. Sri Ram Singhasan Prasad Kalwar ( AIR 1970 All 561 ). It found special appeal to be maintainable. It considered only the provisions of the Letters Patent and Rule 5 of Chapter V11I of High Court Rules. Provisions of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962, as it existed then, were however not placed before the full bench. Subsequently also the Act was amended twice adding sections 4 and 5. 20. As discussed above, even on considering these provisions the special appeal is maintainable provided that the judgment or order of the single judge is not in respect of any judgment, order or award enumerated in Rule 5, or Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Act XIV of 1962. In the present case the order challenged before the single judge is not an order by a tribunal, court, or statutory arbitrator under the provisions of any Act. 21. It is an order of an authority, but not made in exercise of any statutory appellate or revisional power. The exceptions contained in Rule 5 are, therefore, not attracted. 22. None of the exceptions provided in Sections 3, 4 or 5 of Act XIV of 1962, as detailed above would apply in the present case, the order of single judge not being an appellate order, in respect of a decree or order of a subordinate court, nor being a judgment in respect of any order of Board of Revenue or Director of Consolidation, and also not being in respect of appellate or revisional order of any judge in the District. 23. 23. The judgment of the single judge having been passed in exercise of original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and not being covered by any exceptions aforesaid, under clause 10 of the letters Patent read with clause 7 of the Amalgamation Order, read with Article 225 of the Constitution, and Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules, the special appeal would be maintainable. It is also not hit by any provision of the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 as amended. 24. The first contention of the respondent is, therefore, not tenable. 25. On merit, however, we do not find any ground made out for appellate intervention with the judgment of the learned single judge. 26. The movement order has been challenged firstly as being against the transfer policy. The learned single judge has found that the policy does not create any enforceable right, 27. According to the petitioner, he belongs to a low medical category and could not be posted at forward areas, and also his option having been accepted and it having been decided that he would continue to stay at Lucknow till October, 1992, he could not be transferred in January, 1992. 28. Neither of these grounds get any support from the order contained in Annexure No. 7, felled Upon as policy statement. It has been cited in extensor by the learned single judge and need not be reproduced again. Yet its perusal would show that in para 2 it contains the grounds which may be taken for compassionate posting. Para 3 states that medical category is taken into account for posting and no separate requests are needed. It also goes on to say that even in field areas persons having low medical category can be posted, if they fall within the prescribed limitations imposed on their employment by medical Board. 29. This statement shows that the medical category was taken into account in deciding the postings and also that the petitioner having been placed in low medical category is by itself no ground to avoid field posting. 30. Thus this document does not contain anything which may in any manner support the contention of the petitioner about the order of movement being bad. His being of a low medical category has not been stated to be a reason for not transferring him. 30. Thus this document does not contain anything which may in any manner support the contention of the petitioner about the order of movement being bad. His being of a low medical category has not been stated to be a reason for not transferring him. Nor does this policy document say that a person posted on compassionate ground acquires any right not to be transferred during his tenure. 31. Neither of these contentions have any force and were rightly rejected by the learned single judge. 32. It was also attempted to be urged that there was no public purpose necessitating the movement. 33. Transfer is an incidence of service. Even in ordinary nonessential public services also the orders of transfer are not interfered with except on the ground of malice proved. The reasons for transfer do not lend themselves to detailed judicial scrutiny. 34. In defence services, where the considerations involved may be highly sensitive having vital ramifications on the security of the nation, this court cannot in any case scrutinise the exigencies and review the movement orders. Such examination in any case would transcend the accepted parameters of judicial review. The court cannot be surrogate for the authority or sit in appeal against the order. 35. If the exigencies of service so require, of which the defence authorities are to be the sole arbiter, an order of transfer can be passed and no order of movement can be challenged on the ground of its being not necessary. 36. We may also explicitly state another factor which hovers in the background while deciding such matters. Even in an age where the ethical mores are crumbling all around, one would not write back home about a soldier who rushed to a court to avoid a field posting but with a pang of pain, and a sense of disdain. 37. Rule of law cannot be made to run far apart, if it has to be socially responsive and the system retain social credibility especially while considering grant of a discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. No case has been made out by the petitioner to show any tenable right to have the movement order quashed. The petitioner has not been able to show that any finding of the learned single judge needs being interfered with. 38. No case has been made out by the petitioner to show any tenable right to have the movement order quashed. The petitioner has not been able to show that any finding of the learned single judge needs being interfered with. 38. Lastly it was urged that the petitioner had made a representation and the court may direct that it be considered. 39. Sri K.D. Nag has placed before us an order showing that the representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected. As such this contention of the petitioner also cannot keep the order from being implemented. 40. No other point was pressed. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned single judge. 41. This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. (Appeal dismissed.)