The main legal point established in the judgment is that transfer policy guidelines may not be applicable to transfers on promotion, and interference with transfer orders should only occur if the order is mala fide or in violation of a statutory rule.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. - The petitioner, who has been working in the respondent no.2/Airport Authority of India since 18.07.2011, having joined as a Junior Executive (Air Traffic Control) (hereinafter referred to as 'ATC') has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

(a) 'allow the present Civil Writ Petition in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents;

(b) issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or directions qua the Respondents to quash the impugned arbitrary and illegal. transfer & promotion order bearing no. A.32013/135/2022-DPC (ANS), dated 29.07.2022 to the extent of setting aside the transfer of the petitioner from the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi to the Mangalore Station;

(c) also allow Exemplary Costs in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents; and

(d) finally issue such other Order or further Orders as may be deem fit & proper under the Circumstances of the present Case in favour of the Petitioner to secure the ends of Justice.'

2. It is the case of the petitioner that though after joining the services of respondent no.2 as a Junior Executive (ATC) on 18.07.2011 where he continued to remain posted at Delhi, he has been, vide the impugned order dated 29.07.2022, transferred to Mangalore. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the transfers in the respondent no.2 organisation are required to be carried out in terms of the transfer policy dated 27.02.2018 issued by the respondent no.2 itself. She contends that while transferring the petitioner to Mangalore, the respondents have acted in violation of para 3(i), 3(ii), 3(v), 4.1 and 4.8 of the transfer policy which clearly mandates that transfers shall normally be avoided and, in any event, inter-regional transfers would be ordered only as per the seniority based on the length of stay of the officer in a station/region. She submits that, in the present case, while 406 officers were promoted from the post of Assistant Manager to the Manager vide the impugned order, most of them, unlike the petitioner, have been retained at the stations/regions where they were working as Assistant Managers, for which purpose he draws my attention to para nos.3 and 5 of the additional affidavit dated 27.10.2022 wherein the names of officers senior to the petitioner, who have been retained at their existing place of posting, have been mentioned.

3. She next contends that even otherwise the respondents having failed to seek any option from the petitioner as mandated in terms of para 3(i) of the transfer policy, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. She further submits that while issuing the impugned orders, the respondents have even failed to follow the timelines specified in para 3 (i) of the transfer policy which envisages that all transfer orders should be issued by end of March in every year. In the present case, the transfer order having been issued on 29.07.2022 is clearly violative of para 3 (i) of the policy and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Merely because the petitioner, in order to avoid any adverse orders, joined his new posting at Mangalore in the short time granted vide the impugned order, would not imply that he is not aggrieved by the impugned order or that the petition has become infructuous on account of his having joined duty at Mangalore, as contended by the respondent. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order, insofar as it relates to the petitioner's transfer to Mangalore, be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition by contending that the petitioner having been transferred only pursuant to his promotion as the Manager, cannot rely on the transfer policy which is applicable only to annual transfers and not to a transfer which is necessitated as a consequence of the promotion of any employee. He submits that, even though these guidelines are not mandatory, the respondent no.2 is, for administrative reasons, entitled to tran