IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.20737 of 2011 Date of decision : 9.11.2011 Om Parkesh Priyadarshi ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash the communication received by the petitioner on 1.11.2011 vide which he has been transferred from Pathankot to Hasimara (Assam). The petitioner alleges that this has been due to mala fides of respondent No.5. He contends that this transfer is contrary to the policy prescribing tenures for posting. He further contends that according to the posting policy of Airmen, the petitioner was enjoying a normal tenure and accordingly he was required to remain at one station for a minimum tenure of 4-5 years as is stated in clause 4 which requires that Airmen can be posted from one unit to other to meet the organizational needs as well as personal requirements to the extent possible (emphasis provided). A normal tenure of 4-5 years is retained for units, not listed in Appendix 'A1', 'A2' and 'A3'. Learned counsel for the petitioner would have this C.W.P.No.20737 of 2011 -2- Court to believe that station Pathankot does not find mention in Appendix 'A1', 'A2' and 'A3' and he was required to remain at Pathankot for 4-5 years in accordance with clause 4 of the posting policy. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner has two impediments to surmount. One, when he alleges mala fides but does not implead the particular officer against whom mala fides are alleged, this Court is precluded from looking into such allegations. In so far as the second impediment of posting policy is concerned, these are mere guidelines. As is evident from clause 4 of the policy, the postings of Airmen are made from one unit to another to meet the organizational needs as well as personal requirements to the extent possible. It is clearly indicative of the fact that like all other transfers these are matters of administrative exigencies in which the Court has limited or no role to play. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 9.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss