[2025:RJ-JP:49382] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16410/2025 Kailash Chandra Sharma S/o Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 34/394, Pratap Nagar, Near K.v. No. 6, Tonk Road, Sanganer, Jaipur-302 033 (Raj.) Presently Working On The Post Of Manager (Human Resources) (Group-A), Jaipur Airport Asu, Jaipur Airport Under Airport Director, Airport Authority Of India, Aaiclas Building, Ist Floor, Cargo Terminal Sanganer, Jaipur Rajasthan-302029 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Airports Authority Of India, Through Its Member (Hr), Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safarjung Airport New Delhi- 110003 2. The Regional Executive Director, Northern Region, Airports Authority Of India, New Ats Complex, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037 3. General Manager (Human Resource), Northern Region, Airports Authority Of India, New Ats Complex, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi-110037 4. The Officer-Incharge, Airports Authority Of India, Aai Cargo Complex Near Terminal- 1, Jagatpura Road, Sanganer, Jaipur-302029 5. Dy. General Manager (Human Resource), Airports Authority Of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-110003 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nagendra Sharma Ms. Sunita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal with Mr. Sundaram Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/12/2025 1. Instant writ petition is preferred by petitioner with following prayer: i) by an appropriate direction writ, order dated impugned order the 27.8.2025, transfer order 21.7.2025 and relieving order dated dated [2025:RJ-JP:49382] (2 of 6) [CW-16410/2025] 12.8.2025 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to retain the petitioner at his present place of posting i.e. Jaipur ASU with all consequential benefits. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner, who was working as Manager (HR) AT Jaipur Airport is transferred vide order dated 21.07.2025 from Jaipur ASU to Srinagar (J&K) despite the fact that the petitioner is likely to be superannuated on 31.08.2027 and only less than two years are remaining in his superannuation. He further submitted that the respondent AAI has issued a transfer policy on 27.02.2018 and same is annexed with the petitioner as Annexure-8 which was further amended on 18.07.2022 and same is annexed as Annexure-9. He also submitted that as per transfer policy the respondents are under an obligation to consider the conditions of present petitioner not only on ground of superannuation in less than two years but also the family condition whereby the petitioner has prayed that father of petitioner is 100 percent blind and his entire lifestyle is dependent upon the petitioner as the petitioner is only care giver of his father. He further placed reliance upon order dated 11.11.2025 in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1473/2025 titled as Kishore Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and order dated 16.10.2025 in SB CWP No.15798/2025 titled as Dhanne Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., passed by this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:49382] (3 of 6) [CW-16410/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that the petitioner was transferred on the ground that the petitioner is posted at Jaipur since 01.04.2013 and now, by order dated 18.08.2025, the petitioner has been transferred to Srinagar (J&K). She further submitted that transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner has no vested right to continue to remain posted at Jaipur. She also submitted that after privatization of Jaipur Airport, there were administrative exigencies to reduce manpower at Jaipur Airport and there was shortage of manpower at Srinagar; therefore, the petitioner was transferred at the available place and the petitioner cannot dictate the terms to the respondents. She also submitted that respondents are trying to accommodate each and every employee in accordance with the transfer policy, but it is not possible to accommodate each and everyone, particularly due to administrative constraints. She also submitted that the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same is an extraordinary remedy which cannot be invoked in the matter of transfer, and issuance of writ in such matters is not warranted; therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has placed reliance upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of State of UP and Anr. Vs. Siya Ram and Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 405, Union of India and Ors. Vs. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357, AAI Vs. Rajeev Ratan [2025:RJ-JP:49382] (4 of 6) [CW-16410/2025] Pandey and Ors. 2009 Supreme (SC) 1455, and judgment of various High Courts in cases of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8981/2010), P.Saravanan Vs. The Reigonal Executive Dierctor, AAI, South Reigon 2025 Supreme (Online)(Mad) 62452, Sumit Dagar Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2022/DHC/004574, R.Sakeela Vs. Secretary to Government and Ors. (W.P.(MD) No.15696 of 2019). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The basic principle in service jurisprudence while considering the in transfer matters is that transfer is an implied condition of service and ordinarily cannot be challenged merely because it is inconvenient or causes personal hardship to employee. The employer has wide discretion to transfer an employee anywhere within the cadre and the Courts avoid substituting their view for that of the administration. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interferes with transfer orders only on very limited and narrow grounds such as malafides, violation of statutory rules, lack of competence, or patent arbitrariness; but routine hardships are normally not considered while interfering in transfer orders. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for the respondents clearly indicate that where a transfer order is issued in public interest or administrative exigencies, the High Court should not ordinarily entertain the writ petition. [2025:RJ-JP:49382] (5 of 6) [CW-16410/2025] 7. Here in this case, there is no ground of malafides, victimization, or colourable exercise of power by the respondents; therefore, these grounds are irrelevant. The petitioner has referred to the AAI transfer policy, particularly referring to a provision wherein it has been mentioned that during the last three years of service an employee be transferred near hometown. The petitioner has also referred to the medical ground of his father and family conditions. The petitioner has also pointed out that Srinagar is a hard station and there is no vacant post at Srinagar. The petitioner has claimed himself as caregiver for his blind father. 8. During the course of arguments, learned counsel has referred to some places like Kota, Bikaner, and Jaisalmer for accommodation. The material on record clearly indicated that the present petitioner was transferred from Jaipur to Srinagar leaving behind Manoj Kumar Totlani, who will superannuate on 30.11.2026. The petitioner will superannuate on 31.08.2027. 9. We have considered the material as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner about the number of vacancies available in Srinagar and also accommodation and transfer of other individuals by the respondents on medical and other grounds. No doubt there is a transfer policy in AAI and it also provides that during the last three years of service either the employee should be transferred to near hometown or should not be transferred from the place where he is stationed. The transfer policy, further amended on [2025:RJ-JP:49382] (6 of 6) [CW-16410/2025] 18.07.2022, also entitled the caregiver of dependent parents to seek transfer or seek exemption from transfer, on this ground as well. 10. We have considered the entire material available on record including the grounds as raised by the petitioner, but I am of the considered view that when the Jaipur Airport has been privatized and number of manpower of AAI has been reduced, then certainly some employees are required to be transferred. While considering the administrative exigencies, the decision taker is the best person to decide the employability and, in wisdom, the Court cannot substitute its opinion. It is the duty of the employer to consider the guidelines and also the policy while effecting the transfer. But when a person is already stationed at a place for last several years and likely to be retired in two years, but there is administrative exigency to transfer him, then the policy has to give way to the need of administrative exigency. Thus, the petitioner has no cause for quashing of transfer order and relieving order. 11. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed, with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /303