By the Court.— The present Spe cial Appeal has been filed under Chap ter VIII, Rule 5 of.the Rules of the Court against the judgment dated 5-9-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dis missing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43561 of 2012. 2. It appears that the petitioner-ap pellant, who is working on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari, has been transferred from Nyay Panchayat Baseda, Block Nagal, District - Saharanpur to Nyay Panchayat Baghi, Block Nakud, District Saharanpur by the order dated 16-8-2012. 3. Copy of the Transfer Order dated 16-8-2012 appears at page 39 of the Paper Book of the Special Appeal.. 4. The petitioner-appellant filed the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43561 of 2012, inter alia, praying for quash ing the said Transfer Order dated 16-8-2012 in respect of the petitioner-appellant. 5. The learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 5-9-2012.dismissed the said Writ Petition holding that there was no illegality in the Transfer Order, which would require any interference by this Court. 6. Thereupon, the petitioner-appellant has filed the present Special Appeal challenging the said judgment dated 5-9-2012 passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have heard Shri Arun Srivastava, learned Counsel for the peti tioner- appellant and the learned Stand ing Counsel appearing for the respon dents, and perused the record. 8. It is well-settled that the High Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor mally does not interfere with the order of transfer of an employee unless such or der is shown to be ma/a fide or in violation of Statutory Rules. 9. In the present case, no mala fide on the part of the respondents has been shown in passing the said transfer Order dated 16-8-2012. The said Transfer Order has also not been shown to be in viola tion of any Statutory Rules. 10. Shri Arun Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant, how ever, submits that the Transfer Order is in violation of the Transfer Policy issued by the State Government for transfer during the year 2012-13. 11. It is well-settled that the Transfer Policy is framed laying down guidelines for transfer during the year. Such Policy is not statutory in nature. Any deviation from the terms of such Policy does not entitle the affected employee to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. 12.
11. It is well-settled that the Transfer Policy is framed laying down guidelines for transfer during the year. Such Policy is not statutory in nature. Any deviation from the terms of such Policy does not entitle the affected employee to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Con stitution of India. 12. Reference in this regard maybe to the decision of this Court in Rajeev Aurthor v.. State of U.P, 2010 (1) LBESR 625 (All): 2010 (4) AWC 3477 (D.B.). 13. The learned Single Judge was thus right in declining to interfere with the Transfer Order and in dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. 14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dis missed. 15. The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. _____________