Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Fifteen petitioners working as Constable posted in District Etah have been transferred by means of the impugned orders dated 18.9.2009, 20.9.2009 and 22.9.2009, copy whereof has been filed collectively as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The aforesaid orders of transfer have been passed in public interest by the Superintendent of Police (Establishment), acting on behalf of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Head Quarters, Allahabad. It is also evident from the impugned orders that the same have been issued after concurrence of the Police Establishment Board which has been obtained in view of the Apex Court decision in Prakash Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 1. It is clearly averred in para 5 of the writ petition that the petitioners are posted in District Etah for the last more than ten years.

2. Sri Nisheeth Yadav, Advocate has assailed the impugned orders of transfer contending :

(A) The transfer of all the members of police officers of subordinate rank is governed by the Government Orders dated 7.2.1980, 27.6.1984 and 25.3.1995, but ignoring the same the impugned orders have been passed.

(B) All the petitioners belong to a particular community who have been shifted from Etah to Baghpat, Meerut and Muzaffarnagar. it is a clear case of victimization of the petitioners on caste lines and the impugned order is not a simple order of transfer, but malicious in law.

(C) By Government Order dated 6.6.2009, transfer policy for the session 2009-10 has been laid down and it is provided therein that no transfer in the session shall be made but ignoring the same, the impugned orders of transfer have been passed in violation of the said Government policy and, therefore, are liable to be set aside. He contended that the transfer policy has been laid down by the respondents themselves and they are bound to observe the same as held by the Apex Court in Home Secretary, U.T. of Chandigarh and another v. Darshjit Singh Grewal and others, JT 1993 (4) SC 387;Virendra S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana, (1993) 3 SCC 696 and Union of India v. Mamta Anurag Sharma and another, (2001) 2 UPLBEC 2559.

(D) The petitioners are all constables belong to lowest rung of the police force and, hence, being petty members of police force would be in great difficulty in maintaining their family at far flung places if their transfer is allowed in such a usual, casual and routine manner.

(E) The transfer orders have been passed in mid session causing great difficulty to the family since the children of the petitioners are studying and, therefore, it would not be prudent to disturb the entire family of the petitioners in mid session. The respondents without applying mind to all these difficulties have illegally passed the impugned orders. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Director of School Education, Madras and others v. O. Karuppa Thevan and another, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 666, till the end of the session, the petitioners should be allowed to continue at the present place of posting.

3. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed all the above points at length arguing the matter with great labour, diligence and ability, but having given my anxious and deepest thought to the matter, I find myself unable to accept any of the above submission. In my view, this writ petition does not call for any interference.

4. It is no doubt true that an employee and in particular a Government servant is entitled to be treated fairly, impartially, free from any external influence and strictly in accordance with his service conditions, and rules and regulations framed in this regard. Like any other person, various fundamental rights are applicable to the Government servants also and in particular Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. If there is a case demonstrating that a Government servant has been dealt with unfairly or has been discriminated on one or