( 1 ) THE petitioner is before this Court challenging the order of transfer dated 22. 10. 2001 as also the release order dated 17. 1. 2002. By issuing the aforesaid order dated 22. 10. 2001, the respondent sought to transfer the petitioner from New Delhi to Kanpur. By the order dated 17. 1. 2002, the petitioner was released from New Delhi with instructions to him to report for duty at Kanpur. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed this writ petition in this Court. While issuing notice on the writ petition, this Court passed an interim order staying the impugned order of transfer dated 17. 1. 2002, which is operating till today. The petitioner was transferred to Delhi from Dehradoon as Senior Manager on 17. 1. 1996. On 1. 4. 1996, while the petitioner was working at New Delhi, he was promoted from the post of Senior Manager to the post of Deputy General Manager. The petitioner, however, at that relevant time, when he was promoted to the post of Deputy General Manager, was not transferred and was retained in New Delhi. The respondent, however, issued the aforesaid order dated 22. 10. 2001 transferring the petitioner from New Delhi to Kanpur. The petitioner submitted a request to the respondent for his retention in New Delhi sector, which was considered by the respondent and by order dated 17. 1. 2002 the aforesaid request of the petitioner was rejected and he was released from New Delhi in order to enable him to join duties at Kanpur.

( 2 ) BY filing the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the aforesaid order of transfer on the ground that the said order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy of the respondent. Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to the aforesaid transfer policy, a copy of which is placed on record. Counsel particularly relied upon the provisions of paragraph 7 (k), which provides that an employee would not be disturbed with a transfer during the last 3 years of his service and to the extent possible would be posted at the station of his choice.

( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondent, however, submitted that the aforesaid transfer policy is issued by the respondent for the purpose of guidance and the same is not enforceable. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner is in Delhi for about five years and, therefore, he has a transfer liability and that he was directed to be posted at Kanpur in the administrative exigencies of service.

( 4 ) I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. There cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner has a transfer liability. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the aforesaid order of transfer was issued he had less than three years of service left before superannuation and, therefore, even according to the own policy of the respondent he should not have been transferred out.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. H. N. Kirtania (1989) 3 SCC 445 had occasion to consider a similar point and the Supreme Court in that regard observed as under:

"after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties we do not find any valid justification for the High Court for entertaining a writ petition against the order of transfer made against an employee of the Central Government holding transferable post. Further there was no valid justification for issuing injunction order against the Central Government. The respondent being a Central Government employee held a transferable post and he was liable to be transferred from one place to the other in the country; he has no legal right to insist for his posting at Calcutta or at any other place of his choice. We do not approve of the cavalier manner in which the impugned orders have been issued without considering the correct legal position. Transfer of a public servant made on administrative grounds or in public interest should not be interfered with unless there