JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ-petition, whereby he has challenged his transfer order dated 7.4.1998. Petitioner contended that his order of transfer is contrary to the policy laid down by the Bank. Petitioner contended that the transfer for the petitioner is against the policy of transfers. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is transferred from Gwalior to Korba vide order dated 7.4.1998. After his transfer, the petitioner challenged the order of transfer before this Court and also submitted a representation. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of his transfer on the ground that it is contrary to the policy of transfers. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in the case of Abani Kante Ray v. State of Orissa 1995(8) SLR 687. The Court has held that it is settled that the transfer is an incident of service and not to be interfered with by the Courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or vitiated by mala fide or infraction of any professional norm or principle governing the transfer. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India [(1994)6, SCC 98]. In this case also, it is held that interference is justified only in the cases of mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Professed norms and principles are different from the policy. Professed norms have been considered in both the judgments referred above. Professed norm means the transfer is prejudicial to the interest of public. In the present case, only reliance is placed on the transfer policy. The policy has no statutory force. Therefore, it cannot be considered. The petitioner has already carried out the order of his transfer. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the order of transfer. The petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.