WP(C) 1910/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury , learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K.Roy, learned Standing C ounsel, Food Corporation of India (FCI). This writ petition has been filed challenging the legality and validity of Annex ure-2 order dated 21.12.2009 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Shillong to Aizawl on promotion. The petitioner has also challenged the order da ted 16.3.2010 passed by the Executive Director (NE), FCI towards disposal of the representation/appeal made by the petitioner assailing the said order of transf er. The order dated 16.3.2010 has been passed on the basis of the direction of t his Court passed on 02.03.2010 in WP(C) No.1392/2010. The writ petition was file d by the petitioner against the aforesaid transfer order primarily on the ground that he being an office bearer (Regional Secretary) of the Regional Committee o f the Union called Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangha is exempted from tr ansfer. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the responden t No.2 to take on record the representation made by the petitioner and dispose o f the same by a speaking order. Thus, the said authority has rejected the repre sentation by the aforesaid order dated 16.03.2010. From the materials on record it appears that the Zonal Secretary (NE Zon e), Bharatiya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangha has approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati in the matter. According to the petitioner, he was no t aware of such a move and accordingly had moved this Court on 02.03.2010 by fil ing the aforesaid writ petition. The matter is now fixed on 05.04.2010. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner while fairly agreeing that the pet itioner cannot seek total immunity from transfer but he submits that the petiti oner is entitled to some protection as office bearer of the Union. According to him the authority did not consider the case of the petitioner in that prospecti ve. Mr. P K Roy, learned Standing Counsel FCI submits that the transfer order h as been issued in public interest and there is no malafide exercise of power and /or violation of statutory rules. This writ petition was entertained on 22.03.2010 and Mr. Roy, learned Standing C ounsel, FCi was requested to produce the records in which the impugned transfer order dated 21.12.2009 and the speaking order dated 16.3.2010 were passed. Today Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, FCI has produced the records an d I have gone through the same. The records have revealed that while the promot ion order dated 10.12.2009 (Annexure-2) was issued, places of posting for the in cumbents were also indicated in the file. Further, in said order, it was stated that the posting order would follow shortly. The petitioner was shown posted at the Divisional Office, Aizawl. As noticed above, the posting of the petitioner a nd other incumbents to different places are on promotion. The records have furth er revealed that in an around the same date, i.e. 10.12.2009, various other orde rs of promotion were issued and in those orders the places of posting were also indicated in the file. Such posting of the incumbents having been approved, they were posted to different places. The impugned order dated 21.12.2009 is one suc h order by which altogether 8 (eight) incumbents have been posted to different p laces including the petitioner. It will be pertinent to mention here that as noted in the impugned orde r dated 16.03.2010, the petitioner had been working at Shillong under NEF Region for the last 10 years till he was posted to Aizawl on promotion by the aforesai d impugned order dated 29.12.2009. Be it further mentioned here that the petiti oner, pursuant to the passing of the impugned order dated 16.03.2010, has also b een released enabling him to join the promotional post at Aizawl. On perusal of the entire records produced by Mr. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, FCI no malafid e and/or colourable exercise of power is discernible. It is also not the case o f the petitioner that there is violation of any statutory rules in issuing the p osting order. Mr. N Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner upon a reference to the transfer guidelines, more particularly Clause-10, submits that before tak ing recourse to the transfer of office bearer of the Union, it was incumbent on the part of the Authority to consider as to whether the transfer of the Office B earer is absolutely necessary and/or can be avoided. In this connection Mr. Dutt a, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Annexure-2 impu gned order dated 21.12.2009 there is a vacancy in the promotional post at the Di visional Office at Shillong and thus, in terms of the transfer guidelines (Claus e-10), the authority could have posted the petitioner at Shillong instead of pos ting him out of Shillong to Shillong. He further submits that the impugned ord er dated 21.12.2009 is bad in law inasmuch as the authority before issuing the s aid order transferring the petitioner from Shillong to Aizwal did not take into account the aforesaid transfer guidelines, more particularly Clause-10 of the sa me. As indicated above, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(C) No.1392/2010 which was disposed of by order dated 02.03.2010 directing disposal of the representation of the petitioner sub mitted to the authority. As reflected in the order dated 02.03.2010, similar gro unds as in the present proceeding had been urged in the said proceeding. In the said proceeding also the petitioner had referred to Clause-10 of the transfer g uidelines. Another submission made was that the transfer/posting order has been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and administrati ve fair play. Taking into account all these aspects of the matter, the writ peti tion was disposed of with the aforesaid direction. After the aforesaid order was passed by this Court, the authority has pa ssed the impugned order dated 16.03.2010. As regards the protection of the petit ioner under Clause-10 of the transfer guidelines, the authority while passing th e speaking order has observed thus: Shri Ananga Mohan Paul, AG.II (Accounts) was promoted along with others to the higher post of AG.I(Accounts), vide order dated 10.12.2009. Following such promo tion, he was posted at Aizawl under the FCI, District Office, Aizawl within the same N.E.F. Region. I am aware of the notification issued by the FCI, HQ vide or der dated 22.12.2009, by which he is now declared as Protected Workman, on being elected as the State Secretary of the Union. Shri Paul is posted in the N.E.F. Region itself. He was promoted as AG.I(Accounts) with many other employees of hi s grade. His posting at Aizwal under the N.E.F. Region is only an arrangement ma de for administrative convenience, following promotion of a number of person in the grade of AG.I (Accounts) and not for any other reason and non at all, for re asons Shri Paul has mentioned in his representation. The District Office, Aizawl requires experienced AG.I (Accounts), and his posting at Aizawl is also ordered keeping the said fact into consideration. Shri Paul had worked at Aizawl earlie r and his working experience at Aizwal would squarely meet the demand of the Dis trict Office, Aizawl at the moment. Aizawl being within the same NEF Region, he can still work as the Regional Union Representative and all facilities would be provided to him as per his entitlement. Shri Paul has been working at Shillong u nder NEF Region for the last 10 years, which is far beyond the normal tenure. He should, therefore, comply with the order passed on 21.12.2010 for the interest of the Corporation and should set an example for his fellow employees, instead o f raining unfounded dispute on the issue. The representation dated 08.03.2010 su bmitted by Shri Ananga Mohan Paul is hereby rejected accordingly. From the above, it is seen that the particular plea of the petitioner h as been dealt with by the authority while passing the order dated 16.03.2010. There is another aspect of the matter. The transfer guidelines are not s tatutory rules. In a number of decisions it has been held that the transfer guid elines do not have any mandatory force and they are only directory. The authorit y as indicated in the impugned order dated 16.03.2010, has taken note of the par ticular guidelines and also the plea of the petitioner that he should have been exempted from the purview of transfer. Upon consideration of all the aspects of the matter, the authority has passed the said order dated 16.03.2010. The petitioner has been dealt with fairly in the matter of posting on pr omotion. The representation has also been disposed of by speaking order dated 16 .03.2010 taking into account all the grounds urged in the representation. The re cords produced by Mr. P.K. Roy, learned Standing counsel, FCI does not support t he grounds urged by the petitioner. The petitioner after accepting the promotion provided to him by the Annexure-7 order dated 10.12.2009 which clearly indicate d that posting order would follow shortly, cannot turn around the same so as to contend that being an office bearer of the Union, he could not be posted elsewhe re and must be posted at Shillong only, where he had been serving for the last 1 0 (ten) years. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the i mpugned order and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.