(Per Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.)

Since a common issue is involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. These four appeals are directed against the common orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court in dismissing W.P.Nos.23294 of 2009 and batch, dated 13.11.2009; filed questioning the transfer order dated 01.06.2009.

3. The appellants/writ petitioners, who are working in the respondent-Food Corporation of India, contended that by the impugned order of transfer, dated 01.06.2009, they were transferred to Karnataka region and the said transfer order is questioned in the writ petitions, being arbitrary and in violation of the transfer guidelines framed by the respondent-Corporation. The main contention that was urged before the learned Single Judge and also before us is that, many seniors who were promoted ahead of the appellants were retained in the A.P. region, whereas the appellants are subjected to transfer to Karnataka region. The appellants placed reliance on the guidelines dated 18.10.2002 framed by the respondent Corporation. The writ petitions filed by the appellants were opposed by the respondent Corporation primarily contending that the guidelines, which the appellants are relying. upon, are no more in force and are superseded by Circular No.EP-03-2002-33, dated 21.11.2002 and the fresh guidelines only governs the situation. The respondent Corporation also denied the allegation of arbitrariness in the said transfers and they have filed a detailed counter-affidavit contending that there is an acute shortage of Officers in Karnataka region to the extent of 50% of the total sanctioned strength and on account thereof, under the earlier transfer orders altogether 22 officers were transferred to Karnataka region and subsequently, by the impugned transfer orders, 13 officers were transferred from A.P. region to Karnataka region including the appellants/writ petitioners. It is also mentioned that out of the said 13 officers, 7 officers have already joined duty at Karnataka and about 300 other officers of various cadres have also complied with such inter-regional transfer orders between 2008 and 2009. It was also contended that the appellants along with others 52 in number, who have been promoted on 22.12.2008 as Manager (Technical) on regular basis, were continued in AP. region, but on account of the shortage of manpower in Karnataka region and apart from the earlier transfers, the present proceedings under the impugned order were effected covering officers at Sl.Nos.30 to 52 from AP. region to Karnataka region, which includes the appellants.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court considering the rival contentions, held that the transfer of an employee is only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment and such an order warrants no interference unless it is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or in violation of any statutory provisions or where the order is found to be without jurisdiction. Further, following the ratio laid down in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal (1) (2004) 11 SCC 402 = 2004 (4) ALT 23.3 (DNSC), the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the impugned transfer order does not violate any statutory provision and in the absence of any specific averment of mala fide intention being alleged in the order of transfer, it could not be interfered with and accordingly, dismissed the writ petitions.

5. On dismissal of the writ petitions, these writ appeals are preferred and when the appellants/petitioners failed to join at the transferred places, they were placed under suspension by the respondent-Corporation vide orders dated 30.11.2009 and hence W.AM.P.Nos.3009, 3015, 3014 and 3012 of 2009 in W.ANo.1395, 1398, 1396 and 1397 of 2009 respectively, were filed for amendment of the prayer in the writ petitions.

6. This court by order, dated 14.12.2009 granted interim suspension of the order dated 30.11.2009 and also suspended the