JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Under challenge in these three writ petitions are the orders of transfer of the Police officers of the Sub-ordinate ranks. 2. The State of U.P., had come out with the general policy for transfer of its employees for the year 2008-09 on 15th May, 2008. The said transfer policy was issued in supersession to all previous policies on transfer and even the Government orders in this regard. One of the salient features of the said transfer policy is that annual transfers ought to be made between 15th May to 30th June and in case any transfer for any exigency is required to be made after 30th June, the same can be effected only with the approval of the Chief Minister on the papers being routed through the Minister concerned. The year 2009-10 has been declared to be a “no transfer year” vide Government policy dated 6th June, 2009 and it has been reiterated that if under any unprecedented circumstances a transfer is necessary it can only be made with the approval of the Chief Minister again on movement through the Minister concerned. This policy does not supersede the earlier transfer policy 15th May, 2008 issued for the year 2008-09. Thus, in short the Government policy on transfer is that all annual transfers of Government employees be made by 30th June and thereafter no transfer can be made and if at all it is incumbent to do so it can be done with the approval of the Chief Minister. 3. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel on instructions received is not disputing the proclamation of the above transfer policy. The policy is not said to be in contravention of any statutory rule as well. 4. In these petitions it has specifically been averred on affidavit that transfer orders have been issued without the approval of the Chief Minister or the Minister concerned in violation of the guidelines/transfer policy. 5. In view of the above Government policy on transfer the solitary question which has been raised in the present writ petitions is as to whether the transfer of the petitioners made after the cut off date without seeking the approval of the Chief Minister would be illegal being contrary to the Government’s transfer policy. 6. 5. In view of the above Government policy on transfer the solitary question which has been raised in the present writ petitions is as to whether the transfer of the petitioners made after the cut off date without seeking the approval of the Chief Minister would be illegal being contrary to the Government’s transfer policy. 6. I have heard Sri Gulab Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first two writ petitions and Sri Vinod Tripathi, learned counsel appearing in the third writ petition. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel along with Sri B.N. Misra and Sri Ravi Ranjan, who appeared with him have also been heard. 7. Sri H.R. Misra, Senior advocate assisted by Sri K.N. Misra and Sri Vijay Gautam learned counsel also assisted the Court in view of the fact that the above point involved in these three writ petitions is also arising in some other writ petitions in which they are appearing for the petitioners and which are yet to be heard. 8. There are no two opinions that transfer is an incident of service where the Government employee holds a transferable post. It is a normal feature and the order of transfer is not ordinarily liable to be interfered with on the judicial side provided it is not without jurisdiction; it is not passed in violation of any statutory rule; it is not motivated by malice of fact or law; and is otherwise not punitive in nature. It is also settled that the Government is the best judge to utilize the services of its employees and to place and post them at its discretion and such posting does not infringe any of the legal rights of the employees inasmuch as no employee has any right to remain posted at one place or to insist for a particular posting. [Vide B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986(4) SCC 131 ; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 ; Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, JT 2009(1) SC 96]. 9. [Vide B. Vardha Rao v. State of Karnataka, 1986(4) SCC 131 ; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 ; Mrs. Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1991 SC 532 ; Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India and others, JT 2009(1) SC 96]. 9. Certainly, none of the above grounds have been pressed into motion and the only point which has been canvassed is that the Government having framed a policy on transfer and having published the same is supposed to abide by such a policy and any action in violation of the same cannot stand the approval of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. In a democracy transparency is vital for the functioning of the Government and also to contain corruption. Therefore, to keep public informed of its decisions and reasons for such decisions, the Government generally comes out with “policies” so as to make known to the people the general principles by which a Government is guided in its management of public affairs. The term ‘policy’ therefore, denotes the general purpose, tendency or object considered with reference to welfare prosperity, social or political well being of the State. Once such “policies” or a ‘policy’ are/is announced concerning a particular subject, Government decisions are supposed to be taken in pursuance and in accordance thereof. Ordinarily, there is hardly any scope of deviation but for compelling reasons. Such policy decisions partake administrative instructions. 11. The basic principle of administrative law and discipline is that administrative instructions are to be followed by the officers even if they are not enforceable through the Court of law, otherwise it will lead to disorder and the result would be that the entire structure of administration as well the rule of law will fall down. Therefore, the recent trend is that even a public duty which may not necessarily be one imposed by statute may be enforceable through the process of the Court. In Audi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. R.V. Rudani and others, (1989)2 UPLBEC 117 (SC) the Supreme Court observed as under : “.….Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to enforce is not imposed by the Statute. In Audi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. R.V. Rudani and others, (1989)2 UPLBEC 117 (SC) the Supreme Court observed as under : “.….Mandamus cannot be denied on the ground that the duty to enforce is not imposed by the Statute. Commenting on the development of this Law, Professor De Smith states : To be enforceable by mandamus a public duty does not necessarily have to be one imposed by statute. It may be sufficient for the duty to have been imposed by charter, common law, custom or even contract. We share this view. The judicial control over the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the rights of the people should not be put into watertight compartment. It should remain flexible to meet the requirements of variable circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy which must be easily available to reach injustice wherever it is found. ‘Technicalities should not come in the way of granting the relief under Article 226…..” 12. In an earlier decision, the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.P. Joseph, AIR 1973 SC 303 ruled that a mandamus can be issued to enforce right arising out of administrative direction and in case of D.F.O. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh, AIR 1973 SC 295 went on to observe that a mandamus can be issued even to a private individual where a collusion is established between a public officer and a private individual affecting the right of the third party. 13. It may not be out of context to refer to Union of India v. M/s. Indo Afgan Agency, AIR 1968 SC 718 wherein the Apex Court ruled that even an obligation is enforceable and the Court is enjoin to see that it is carried out as per the scheme. 13. It may not be out of context to refer to Union of India v. M/s. Indo Afgan Agency, AIR 1968 SC 718 wherein the Apex Court ruled that even an obligation is enforceable and the Court is enjoin to see that it is carried out as per the scheme. The relevant observation of the Supreme Court is quoted below : “But the respondents are not seeking to enforce any contractual right, they are seeking to enforce compliance with the obligation which is laid upon the Textile Commissioner by the terms of the Scheme, and we are of the view that even if the Scheme is executive in character, the respondents who were aggrieved because of the failure to carry out the terms of the Scheme were entitled to seek resort to the Court and claim that the obligation imposed upon the Textile Commissioner by the Scheme be ordered to be carried out.” 14. The Supreme Court in one of its decision reported in JT 1993 (4) SC 387, Home Secretary v. Union of India; Territory of Chandigarh v. Darshjit Grewal and others in paragraph 15 observed as under : “It may be relevant to emphasise at this juncture that while the Rules and Regulations referred to the above are statutory, the policy guidelines are relatable to the executive power of the Chandigarh Administration. It is axiomatic that having enunciated a policy of general application and having communicated it to all concerned including the Chandigarh Engineering College, the Administration is bound by it. It can, of course, change the policy but until that is done, it is bound to adhere to it.” 15. In another decision reported in (1999) 3 SCC 696 , Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another, the Supreme Court ruled that policy decision taken by the Government is binding, if it is not contrary to the rules and therefore the view taken by the High Court that administrative instructions cannot be enforced in the matter of recruitment would amount to looking at the matter from a narrow and a wrong angle. A similar view has been expressed by the superior Court in the case of Union of India v. Mamta Anurag Sharma and another, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2559 and the guidelines circulated by the Central Government with regard to inter cadre transfer of All India Service Officers was held to be binding. A similar view has been expressed by the superior Court in the case of Union of India v. Mamta Anurag Sharma and another, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2559 and the guidelines circulated by the Central Government with regard to inter cadre transfer of All India Service Officers was held to be binding. 16. On the contrary, without considering the impact and the binding nature of the executive instructions or the Government policy the Apex Court while specifically dealing with the matter concerning transfer of primary teachers of the State of Bihar, in AIR 1991 SC 532 , Shilpi Bose and others v. State of Bihar and others, laid down that even if a transfer order is passed in violation of the executive instructions or orders, the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the order and should relegate the persons aggrieved to approach the higher authorities in the department. Similarly, in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, AIR 1993 SC 2444 the Apex Court while dealing with the transfer of a Government employee held that guidelines issued by the Government did not confer upon the employee a legally enforceable right and therefore even though the authorities are bound to keep in mind the said guidelines, order of transfer cannot be interfered with unless it is vitiated by mala fides or has been passed in violation of any statutory rule. 17. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Uma Shankar Rai v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (2) ESC 786 (All)(DB)(LB) wherein the Court after elaborately considering the entire case law on the subject concluded in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Shilpi Bose and S.L. Abbas (supra) that the impugned order of transfer was not liable to be interfered with on the ground that the authorities have not followed and adhered to the guidelines. 18. Thus, in view of the above decisions, the legal position that emerges is that ordinarily a transfer order passed in violation of the policy of transfer may not be interfered with as the transfer policy or guidelines or instructions are not statutory in nature and therefore, do not infringe upon any legal right of the employee even though the policy binds the Government and its officers. It means giving unbridled power to the Government to make transfers irrespective of its own policy, if such situation is permitted to prevail, it may lead to chaos in the day to day administration as day in and day out Government functions are being carried out on the basis of various Government policies/schemes announced from time to time supplementing the rules. Every day petitions are being filed, entertained and are disposed of with suitable directions to the authorities concerned to act and abide by the terms and conditions of such policies. Therefore, in this context, the disobedience of the policy proclaimed by the Government give rise to another equally important question affecting the public vis-a-vis about the status, the binding effect and the consequence of disobedience of the Government policy inasmuch as, on equitable principles, Government cannot be permitted to act contrary to the promise made by it publically as otherwise it would render the public policy an eyewash or a waste paper or would make it an instrument of oppression of its employees and to deceive the people at large. It may work as a handle to the Government for propagating corruption by running an industry by making arbitrary transfer rewarding its favourites with lucrative postings and by victimizing the others. These are all vital questions which need to be addressed in the larger public interest. Therefore, the Government has to come out with a clean and clear stand on its aforesaid transfer policy as to whether it proposes to stick to it and is bound by the same and further as to whether it intends to apply the policy uniformly. 19. However, in the circumstances as the impugned orders of transfer does not prima-facie infringe upon any of the rights of the petitioners and at the same time do not stand vitiated primarily on account of being contrary to the Government policy on transfer, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner by way of interim protection irrespective of the fact that certain writ petitions involving this very controversy have earlier been disposed of without actually deciding the controversy with certain directions virtually having the effect of protecting the interest of the employees. 20. 20. Nonetheless, I am of the opinion that a question of great public importance as referred to above is required to be answered by the Court by a more authoritative pronouncement namely : "Whether the Government having announced a policy can use it selectively or can pass orders contrary to it and can such orders be permitted to go unchecked merely for the reason that no right of the complaining person is found to be affected or infringed?” 21. In view of the above, I allow the learned Standing Counsel a month’s time to file counter affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P., sworn by the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P., and direct the registry of the Court to place the papers of these writ petitions before Hon’ble the Chief Justice under Chapter V Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court, 1952 at the earliest for constituting a larger Bench for resolving the question of law formulated above or any other ancillary question which may also be found fit and reasonable under the aforesaid facts and circumstances. ————