JUDGMENT - M.L. DUDHAT, J.:---Petitioners in this case have filed this writ petition for the direction directing respondents Nos. 1 and 3 to withdraw, revoke and set aside the permanent posting order dated 20th April, 1994 posting the 2nd respondent to the post of Air Port Manager, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and further directing the respondents to fill in the said post on the basis of seniority in accordance with the posting policy. Petitioner No. 1 is the society registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act and the Societies Registration Act of 1860 and represents officers of 1st respondent in grades ranging from Assistant Station Superintendent to Senior Station Managers. Petitioner No. 2 and petitioner No. 3 are permanent employees of 1st respondent in its commercial department being Assistant Station Superintendents therein. By this writ petition the petitioners are aggrieved by arbitrary and discriminatory treatment given to the Senior Assistant Station Superintendents in the matter of foreign postings and international assignments by superseding their claims to the juniors in utter breach of the established policy and the norms for such posting. 2. Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the present case respondent No. 2, who is much junior to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and other 213 officers, was given posting at Jeddah in clear violation of the norms accepted by respondent No. 1 for such posting. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the grade of the petitioners is Assistant Station Superintendent which is transferable to all stations served by Air India both in India as well as abroad. Form the inception of the said airline respondent No. 1 foreign postings have been specially sought for by the Assistant Station Superintendents and other transferable members of the commercial department as well as by other departments which maintained posts outside country. Foreign postings are not only beneficial to career advancement, promotion prospects and the individual employees exposure to advanced airport systems and airline procedures in other part of the world, but such postings are also financially lucrative. Employees at the foreign postings are also paid allowances which are very lavish by domestic standards, giving opportunity to the employees not only to acquire useful household effects and improve their standard of living, but also to build up substantial savings on a scale which is otherwise impossible to achieve while in India. Employees at the foreign postings are also paid allowances which are very lavish by domestic standards, giving opportunity to the employees not only to acquire useful household effects and improve their standard of living, but also to build up substantial savings on a scale which is otherwise impossible to achieve while in India. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of this advantageous position of foreign postings of the employees, respondent No. 1 has evolved a policy based upon posting seniority. Posting seniority is determined by giving seniority firstly to those officers in a grade who have never before been posted abroad and, thereafter to those who have been posted in the past but have spent the longest time in India after their return to the country. This is described by respondent No. 1 as the principle of "first in first out" and this ensures that the first preference for foreign postings is given in the order of seniority in the grade to those who have not been posted before, while the next preference after all the persons in the grade have been posted, is given to those who returned earlier from their prior posting. The seniority in the grade is subject only to weeding out of any officer who is considered unsuitable due to a poor service record or other such disqualification. It is further contended on behalf of the present petitioners that the policy of foreign posting as mentioned aforesaid is consistently followed by the respondents in the past and except non-observance in the case of women employees, seniority in the grade has always been followed while posting officers abroad. Petitioners further contended that there is hardly any significant deviation from the policy during the last 30 years. In order to reiterate the above position about the policy for foreign posting, the petitioners have relied upon circular dated 26th April, 1994 more particularly para 7, which is as under : "As regards posting, please note that the officers are selected on the basis of Posting Seniority and which is determined by giving seniority, firstly to officers who have never been posted abroad followed by those who have returned first to India from a posting abroad following the principle of first in first out. In both cases, the current suitability of an officer for a posting is also taken into account. In both cases, the current suitability of an officer for a posting is also taken into account. Based on this criteria as and when your turn comes as per the Posting Seniority in the grade of Station Manager, you will be considered for a posting subject to your being considered suitable for the posts available." Relying upon the aforesaid circular, Shri Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that for the posting abroad respondent No. 1 is supposed to follow the aforesaid norms and policy and in fact in the past consistently followed the aforesaid norms and the policy. 3. Petitioners contended that inspite of the aforesaid policy, recently respondent No. 1 posted respondent No. 2 who was about 213 ranks junior to the last Assistant Station Superintendent who has been posted abroad. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 2 is listed at Serial No. 621 of Air Indias Staff List of 1993 in respect of the Commercial Department, whereas the last Assistant Station Superintendent posted abroad is one K.G. Deshmukh, who is listed at Serial No. 406 of the Staff List for 1993. It is further contended by the petitioners that not a single one of the 214 Assistant Station Superintendents listed in between 407 and 620 have ever been posted abroad though they are all considered senior to respondent No. 2. Many of them entered the grade of Assistant Station Superintendent in 1982 and onwards, while respondent No. 2 was in fact promoted as Assistant Station Superintendent in the year 1990. 4. Relying on the aforesaid facts and figures stated in the petition, it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 1 arbitrarily and by adopting the policy of discrimination, posted respondent No. 2 to Jeddah bypasssing the claim of remaining 213 Assistant Station Superintendents who were senior to him and who were due for such posting much earlier to the claim of respondent No. 2 for such type of posting. In para 11 of the petition petitioners contended that in fact respondent No. 1 committed the breach of its own rules and norms which were established for such a long time, only because respondent No. 2 is a relative of Union Cabinet Secretary Shri Zafar Saifullah. In para 11 of the petition petitioners contended that in fact respondent No. 1 committed the breach of its own rules and norms which were established for such a long time, only because respondent No. 2 is a relative of Union Cabinet Secretary Shri Zafar Saifullah. The posting of respondent No. 2 was effected as a result of instructions given to the 1st respondent from the office of the Cabinet Secretary and the office of the Civil Aviation Secretary. According to the petitioners, it is because of the result of the aforesaid instructions, the 2nd respondent was hurriedly posted to Jeddah on temporary basis even before his regular posting could be approved or finalised and he was sent there in the month of April 1994. Petitioners contended that the posting of respondent No. 2 at Jeddah is prejudical to the petitioners and other similar Assistant Station Superintendents in 213 in number of respondent No. 1. Apart from the aforesaid in para 12 of the petition the petitioners have also referred to many of the misconducts committed by respondent No. 2 and Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that especially taking into consideration these various misconducts as alleged against respondent No. 2, even in case respondent No. 2 was due for such posting as per the policy of respondent No. 2 his claim ought to have been weeded out as unsuitable due to such disqualification. 5. As against this, respondents have not filed any affidavit though they are duly served. Apart from that, on the last time when the matter came up for hearing on 24th June, 1994 time was given to file affidavit within two weeks but inspite of the same, till today the respondents failed to file the reply and, therefore, the averments made in the petition by the petitioners have gone unchallenged and we have to proceed to decide this writ petition on the basis that the facts as stated in the petition are correct. 6. Shri Bharucha, learned Counsel for the respondents, contended that it is true that there is a policy of respondent No. 1 about the transfer of the officers on the foreign posting as stated by the petitioners but he further contended that as per the said policy, the said transfers are made on the basis of current suitability as stated in the said circular. In our opinion, there is no substance in the argument as advanced by Shri Bharucha. Firstly, in this case it is an admitted position that the petitioners and about 213 Assistant Station Superintendents are senior to respondent No. 2 who was promoted as Assistant Station Superintendent first time in the year 1990. There is nothing on record to show that all these 213 Assistant Station Superintendents, who, as per the circular and the policy stated above, were entitled for posting at foreign posts, are unsuitable for the said posting. Further there is nothing on record to show as to why the special treatment is given to respondent No. 2 who is junior to 213 Assistant Station Superintendents. Apart from that, in fact as the record stands it appears from the averments in the main petition in para 12 that there are certain allegations about misconduct against respondent No. 2. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the policy of respondent No. 1 as regards posting in the foreign post for last 25 years was governed by certain set of norms in respect of which respondent No. 1 has committed a breach by violating the same in the case of appointing respondent No. 2 to the post at Jeddah and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioners had reason to believe that the said impugned order was passed on extraneous consideration as alleged in the petition. 7. Relying on the authority of the Supreme Court in (Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society etc. v. Union of India and others)1, J.T. 1992(5) S.C. 621, Shri Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, contended that the existence of legitimate expectation of about 213 Assistant Station Superintendents senior to respondent No. 2 have number of consequences and one of such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the legitimate expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. In case of legitimate expectation if the authority proposes to defeat a persons legitimate expectation it should afford him an opportunity to make representation in the matter. In case of legitimate expectation if the authority proposes to defeat a persons legitimate expectation it should afford him an opportunity to make representation in the matter. If respondent No. 1 makes a departure from the aforesaid policy by posting respondent No. 2 at foreign posting by passing the claims of 213 Assistant Station Superintendents, the same is liable to be struck down on the ground of discrimination and also on the ground that the said order is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We agree with the aforesaid argument advanced by the petitioners. 8. In view of this, this writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clauses (a) and (b). 9. In view of the aforesaid decision of ours, respondent No. 1 is given time to implement the directions and orders passed by this Court within four weeks from today. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. *****