Administrative authorities are obligated to provide reasoned decisions when rejecting requests for reconsideration of transfer orders, especially when specific contentions regarding the violation of established seniority-based transfer policies are raised by employees.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer and Ext.P8 order rejecting the request of the petitioners for reconsideration of their orders of transfer. Petitioners are working as Supervisors in the Airport Rescue and Firefighting Service Wing of the Airport Authority of India at Calicut International Airport, Malappuram District. As part of annual general transfer of 2025, the 1^st petitioner, as per Ext.P4, has opted various stations, of which he was opted Madurai as his first option, whereas the 2^nd petitioner, as per Ext.P5, has opted to permit him to continue in Calicut itself or granted a transfer to the other Stations reflected in Ext.P5. Petitioners have a case that, going by Ext.P2 seniority list for transfer, 1^st petitioner is figured rank No.76 and the 2^nd petitioner as rank No.73. The grievance of the petitioners is that the requests made as per Exts.P4 & P5 were not considered and both the petitioners were transferred to Trichi. Petitioners would submit that one Shameem T.R., who is figured as rank No.81 in Ext.P2, was given the benefit of transfer to Madurai. Petitioners would submit that this is in violation of Ext.P1 Transfer Policy of the Airport Authority of India. Thereupon, petitioners have filed Exts.P6 & P7 representations, which was rejected by Ext.P8 general order without assigning any reason, except to say that the change of place of posting is not agreed upon. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, relying on Clause 3(v) of Ext.P1 transfer policy, submits that transfer has to be in accordance with the seniority in stay at the region/station as applicable. The learned Counsel also relies on Clause 4.1, which provides that the transfers when made shall be in accordance with the seniority in stay at the station in the region and going by Clause 4.8, intra-regional transfers shall be made on the basis of length of continuous stay at the station and inter-

regional transfers on the basis of length of continuous stay in the region.

2. The learned Counsel for the respondents, based on the counter affidavit filed, especially paragraph 26, submits that Sri.Shameem T.R., who is rank No.81 in Ext.P2, placed below the petitioners in regional seniority list, was granted a posting at Madurai due to his position at Sl.No.3 in Station Seniority of Coimbatore Airport. The learned Counsel would further submit that the annual general transfer 2025 is now in vogue and the petitioners could make their choice during the general transfer of 2026.

3. When the matter came up for admission on 31.07.2025, this Court has passed an interim order directing that the petitioners shall not be relieved and they are continuing on the strength of the said interim order.

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. Going by Ext.P1 transfer guidelines, transfer shall be effected based on the seniority in the stay at the region/station as applicable and going by Ext.P2 seniority list, petitioners are senior to Sri.Shameer T.R., who has been favoured with a transfer to Madurai. Petitioners are continuing on the strength of the interim order till date. Another aspect to be noticed is that the transfer guidelines provides for filing objection if the employees are aggrieved by the orders of transfer, which is provided in Clause 9.10 and based on the same that Exts.P6 & P7 requests were made by the petitioners. A perusal of Ext.P8 reveals that none of the contentions raised by the petitioners has been considered while rejecting their claim, but the same has been rejected by a one line order stating that change o