WP(C) 2640/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In assailment is the orders dated 29/2/2008 and 10/4/2008 passed on behalf of the Airports Authority India (for short hereafter referred to as t he AAI) transferring the petitioner from Guwahati to Bangalore as Manager (Air T raffic Control) and releasing in accordance therewith. By order dated 1/7/2008, this Court had stayed the impugned transfer as well as the release of the petiti oner. 2. I have heard Mr. HRA Choudhury, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. B. Islam, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate assisted by J. Patwari, Advocate for the AAI. 3. In brief the petitioner’s pleaded case is that having joined the services of the National Airports Authority (presently AAI) on 18/8/1994 as an Aerodrome Assistant, he was posted at the Imphal Airport. He was promoted to the grade of Assistant Manager (Air Traffic Control) on 25/6/2002 and thereafter as Manager (Air Traffic Control) on 18/8/2005. He was eventually posted in the abo ve capacity at the LGBI Airport, Guwahati on 4/8/2006. In the month of November, 2007, the respondents 5 and 7 were promoted as Manager (Air Traffic Control) ag ainst vacancies available at the Bangalore International Airport and by order da ted 13/12/2007 were transferred from Guwahati to Bangalore in pursuance thereof. By the impugned order dated 29/2/2008, the transfer of the said respondents has been cancelled and the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 instead have been po sted out to Bangalore. The petitioner and the respondent No. 7 both have submitt ed representations before the respondent No. 3, Chairman, Airports Authority of India, New Delhi against their transfer. The petitioner inter alia requested for deferment of his transfer for at least one year. He has alleged that though the representation of the respondent No. 7 has been favourably considered and she h as been retained at Guwahati, his request did not meet with same positive respon se and by the impugned order dated 10/4/2008, he has been relieved from his post at Guwahati with instructions to proceed on permanent transfer to Bangalore. In addition to his assertion that his transfer is in contravention of the existing rules and norms of the AAI, the petitioner has referred to his various postings in between and has contended that the stay of the respondent No. 7 at Guwahati being longer than his, she ought to have been transferred. He also has detailed his personal and family problems that would compound his inconveniences if the i mpugned order of transfer is implemented. 4. The AAI in its affidavit has maintained that it is a multi-locat ional organization having international and domestic Airports spread all over th e country and in its transfer policy for the sake of operational efficiency, thr ee distinct seniority lists have been drawn up to regulate the movement of its e mployees in administrative exigencies. (1) Intra-regional transfer seniority for transfer from one station/unit to another station/unit within a particular regi on. (2) Inter-regional transfer seniority list for transfer of employees from on e region to another region and (3) Transfer to tenure/unpopular station seniorit y list for the transfer from non-tenure to tenure/unpopular region. 5. The AAI has emphasized that transfers are always effected for or ganizational requirements and exigencies of work vis-à-vis the seniority maintai ned for the above purpose. Referring to Clause 4(vii) of its transfer policy, th e answering respondent has insisted that the service tenure of an individual in various stations in the Northeastern Region is to be construed as a single tenur e for determining the duration thereof and the same can be made the basis for ch oosing one over the other incumbent for effecting transfer. Contending that the respondents 5, 6 and 7 had been promoted to the grade of Manager (Air Traffic Co ntrol) on 8/11/2007 and posted at Guwahati, it has been averred that though the respondents 5 and 6 were initially transferred to Bangalore on 13/2/2007, on a r eview, it was discovered that due to oversight officers senior to them as per in ter regional seniority namely Shri B.R. Thousen, Manager (A.T.C.)(petitioner) an d Mrs. A. Bhowmick, Manager (Air Traffic Control)(respondent No. 7) have been ov erlooked. The AAI has in categorical terms stated that the petitioner has the lo ngest stay in the Northeastern Region amongst all the respondents and, therefore , in terms of the policy has been transferred to Bangalore. The answering respon dent has justified the postponment of the transfer of the respondent No. 7 on th e consideration of the fact that her length of stay in the Northeastern Region i s shorter than that of the petitioner. Refuting the imputation that the impugned order of transfer is in violation of the transfer policy, the AAI has asserted that the petitioner’s posting in the Northeastern Region is from August 1994 and that his transfer having been effected in terms of the seniority list for inter regional transfer, the same is valid and does not warrant any interference of t his Court. 6. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the pleaded averments has underlined that as the impugned order effectuates a trans fer from a tenure station at Guwahati to a non-tenure station at Bangalore at te rms of Clause 8(a) of the Transfer Policy, officers with longer stay at the tenu re station ought to have been posted out at first. He has contended that his dur ation of stay at Guwahati is less than that of the respondents 5, 6 and 7. The l earned Sr. Counsel has persuasively argued that the impugned order of transfer i s in obvious violation of Clause 8(a) of the Transfer Policy and having been pas sed to favour the respondent No. 5 and 6 on extraneous considerations, the same is nonest in law. According to him, the impugned order is not in public interest or administrative exigency and, therefore, ought to be interfered with in the i nterest of justice and fair play. 7. The learned Sr. Counsel for the AAI referring to Clause 4(viii) of the Transfer Policy has urged that as the impugned order comprehends inter re gional transfer, the length of continuous stay in the region is the decisive cri teria. Applying the said yardstick, the petitioner having the longest stay in th e Northeastern Region, having been identified for his transfer to Bangalore, the arrangement being in conformity with the Transfer Policy is valid and unassaila ble. As the length of stay of respondent No. 7 in the Northeastern Region is com paratively shorter than that of the petitioner, her transfer has for the time be ing deferred, he affirmed. The transfer of the respondents 5 and 6 though initia lly been contemplated, on a review thereof on the measure of Transfer Policy, th e decision was recalled, he pleaded. In support of his submissions, Mr. Choudhur y has produced before this Court the official records pertaining to the transfer involved. 8. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, however, has insiste d that as the transfer is from a tenure station to a non-tenure one Clause 8(a) would apply and to that extant Clause 4(vii) would stand superceded. 9. The contentious pleadings and the equally competing arguments ha ve received the required consideration of this Court. The Transfer Policy broadl y contemplates two categories of transfer namely inter regional transfer denotin g transfer from one region to another and intra regional transfer signifying mov ement from one station to another within the region. There is no dissension at t he Bar that the petitioner and the private respondents are all posted in the Nor theastern Region of the State as conceptualized in the Transfer Policy whereunde r Guwahati is a two year tenure station. Bangalore is a general station in the S outhern Region. Clause 4(vii) of the Transfer Policy [earlier numbered as 3(viii )] being of considerable significance is extracted hereinbelow. Intra regional transfers shall be made on the basis of length of continuous sta y at the station and inter regional transfers on the basis of length of continuo us stay in the region. The transfer in the case in hand is from a tenure station to a g eneral station as comprehended in Clause 8(a) of the Transfer Policy, which also demands the extraction thereof. Clause 8(a) &. When transfer from tenure to non-tenure station is made, an offi cial in the cadre with the longest stay in the tenure station shall be transferr ed out first. 10. Though a passing reference was made to Clause 6 of the Transfer Policy, which deals with transfer on promotion, the learned Counsels for the par ties having eventually concurred that the same being of no relevance qua the iss ue under adjudication, no dilation in this regard is essential. The transfer of the petitioner from Guwahati to Bangalore basically is one from the Northeastern Region to the Southern Region envisaged in the Transfer Policy. Consequentially in terms of Clause 4(vii) length of continuous stay in the region i.e. the Nort heastern Region would be decisive. While visibly inter regional transfer would i nvolve a change of stations, tenure or general as the case may be the converse m ay not necessarily precipitate the same eventuality. To subjugate the criteria f or effecting inter regional transfer as contained in Clause 4(vii) to the one pr escribed for transfer from a tenure to a non-tenure station would be to defy the schematic structure of the Transfer Policy. The tenet evolved for intra regiona l transfer based on stational seniority though applicable to transfer from a ten ure station to a general station, the same can neither condition nor supercede t he norm envisaged for inter regional transfers. In view of this estimate, the pl ea of applicability of length of continuous stay in a tenure station to the fact s of the instant case does not commend for acceptance. As the impugned decision conceives of an inter regional transfer for all intents and purposes stational s eniority is inconsequential. Length of stay in the tenure station for transfer t herefrom in the comprehension of this Court would be of determinative significan ce only for effecting intra regional transfers. Any other view would pitch the p recepts enjoined for the two modes of transfer on a collision course rendering t he policy unworkable. 11. The service cards of the petitioner, respondent No. 5, responden t No. 6 and respondent No. 7 indicate their length of stay in the Northeastern R egion as hereunder. Sl. No. Name Date from which the officer is in the Northeastern Region 1. Bina Ram Thousan (petitioner) 18/8/1994 2. Hari Krishna Biswas (respondent No. 5) 25/10/1995 3. Kamal Kr. Das (respondent No. 6) 4/12/1995 4. Smt. Anindita Bhowmic (respondent No. 7) 24/10/1995 11. The above statistics clearly demonstrate that the petitioner’s s tay in the Northeastern Region has been the longest amongst the incumbents in th e fray. 12. In the face of the above revelations, the decision of the respon dent authorities in deferring the transfer of respondent No. 7 temporarily canno t be faulted with. The endeavoured plea of discrimination thus fails. 13. The official records produced in course of the arguments also di sclose that the initial decision to transfer the respondents 5 and 6 to Bangalor e has been recalled on the consideration that the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 have a longer stay in the Northeastern Region. The impugned decision and t he pleaded averments in support thereof therefore stand duly endorsed by the con temporaneous official records. 14. On a totality of the considerations as alluded hereinabove, the challenge to the impugned decision cannot be sustained. The petition fails and i s dismissed. The stay order stands vacated. No costs.