JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through these writ petitions the petitioners who happen to be constable in Civil Police, working in District Kashiram Nagar have challenged their transfer orders dated 23.9.2009 by which they have been transferred from District Kashiram Nagar to District Saharanpur by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment) U.P. Police Headquarter at Allahabad. These transfer orders have been challenged on the following grounds : (a) Because these orders have been passed in the mid academic sessions and in case these are allowed to sustain the study of the petitioner’s children would suffer and the petitioners would also face a lot of difficulty. (b) Because the transfer orders are in the teeth of Government Order, meant for transfer of this annual session. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners the Government policy is to be honoured and followed by the authorities. (c) Because the impugned orders are an out come of colourable exercise of power as the persons belonging to Yadav by caste have only been transferred from District Kashiram Nagar to District Saharanpur. 2. On 22.10.2009 this Court had passed the following orders : “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only 10 constables have been transferred belonging to Yadav by caste from District Kashiram Nagar to District Saharanpur and no other constables have been transferred. In view of that learned standing counsel is directed to seek instructions as to whether the averments made to this effect are true. In case it is true the reason for transferring the constables belonging to a particular caste be disclosed. Copy of the order may be supplied to the learned standing counsel by tomorrow.” 3. Pursuant thereto a short counter-affidavit has been filed by learned standing counsel. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that in view of the Government orders dated 15.10.2009 and 21.10.2009 the policy of transfer relating to the general State Government Employees are not applicable in the case of transfer of the police department. Copy of such instructions have been brought on record as annexure C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit. It has also been stated that 109 constables belonging to Yadav by caste were posted in District Kashiram Nagar and out of them only ten constables have been transferred from Kashiram Nagar to District Saharanpur and 99 are still working. Copy of such instructions have been brought on record as annexure C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit. It has also been stated that 109 constables belonging to Yadav by caste were posted in District Kashiram Nagar and out of them only ten constables have been transferred from Kashiram Nagar to District Saharanpur and 99 are still working. It is also stated that pursuant to the transfer orders the petitioners have joined at their transferred place. 4. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the transfer is an incidence of service and there is a very little scope of judicial interference in transfer matters unless the transfer orders smack of mala fide or have been passed under colourable exercise of power or against the statutory provisions. In the present case no such ground exists, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. 5. I have heard Sri Raj Narain learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh learned standing counsel appearing for the State respondents and perused the record. Initially when these writ petitions were filed, ignoring the other grounds, the Court has called upon the State only for the reason that as to why and under what circumstances constables belonging to a particular caste have been transferred. So far as other grounds are concerned in view of the settled legal position, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the main transfer order as the transfer is an incidence of service and a Government servant has no right to continue on a particular place and whatever right he has, has only against the post. These legal principles have been laid down in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamilnadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 , Union of India v. Sankaldchand Himatlal Sheth, 1977 (4) SCC 193 , B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, JT 1986 (1) SC 249. The Apex Court in the case of Gujrat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani, AIR 1989 SC 1433 , held that a transfer from one place to another is necessary in the public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. In case if it is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the case of Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, AIR 1991 SC 532 , the Apex Court held that if the transfer order is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. In the case of Rajendra Rai v. Union of India, 1993 (1) SCC 148 , the Apex Court held that Court should not interfere with the transfer order unless there is a violation of statutory provisions or transfer order smacks of mala fide. The same view has been reiterated in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India, JT 1994 (5) SC 298, Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa and others 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 169. State of U.P. v. Gobarthan Lal, 2004 (11) SCC 404, Mohd. Masood Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2007 (12) SC 467, Rajendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, JT 2009 (10) SC 187. 6. The main ground to challenge the transfer orders as set up in these writ petitions are that the transfer orders have been made under colourable exercise of power as persons belonging to particular caste have been transferred. For testing this argument the Court had earlier directed the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions or file counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that there happened to be 109 constables belonging to Yadav by caste in District Kashiram Nagar and out of which only 10 (ten) have been transferred. Looking into the number of the existing strength at District Kashiram Nagar of a particular caste it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed under colourable exercise of power with a view to victimise the constables of a particular caste. 7. Looking into the number of the existing strength at District Kashiram Nagar of a particular caste it cannot be said that the impugned orders have been passed under colourable exercise of power with a view to victimise the constables of a particular caste. 7. So far as the challenge of the impugned transfer orders on the ground of violation of the Government policy is concerned, the attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned standing counsel towards the Government orders dated 15.10.2009 and 21.10.2009 (C.A.-2) of the counter-affidavit which preclude the police department, from the purview of the transfer policy made for general Government servant, therefore, this argument do not carry any weight. 8. So far as the other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to the transfer orders passed in the mid academic sessions is concerned except the balled allegations no concrete material have been brought on record in this regard. Otherwise also since the transfer orders have been passed in public interest, not in breach of any statutory provision, therefore, in view of the settled legal position as discussed above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned transfer orders. 9. These writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ————