1. The petitioner, who was working at CBO- Jammu (under DO-1) Jammu, in terms of order dated 24.01.2011 has been transferred to BO-Rajouri (under Do-II) till further orders. The said order is passed by the Regional Manager by invoking the powers contained in Sub-Paragraph (1) of Paragraph 18 of the General Insurance (Rationalization and Revision of Pay Scales and Other Conditions of Service oi Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff) Scheme, 1974 (for short the Scheme). It is this order, which is called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition. 2. On notice issued, the respondents have filed their objections/reply affidavit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned transfer order is illegal and cannot sustain in law in as much as the same has been issued in breach of the mandate contained in paragraph 18 of the Scheme. Learned counsel further submitted that this Scheme was amended by SO 2472(E) dated 08.10.2010. In terms of para 9 (d) of the amended Scheme, it was provided that in exceptional circumstances, where the requirement or need of the Company or the Corporation, as the case may be are not found to be met by restricting a particular transfer to a radius of 150 kms., the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, or an officer not below the rank of Scale VII authorized in this behalf by him, may transfer an employee beyond a radius of 150 Kms. Learned counsel submitted that Regional Manager was not authorized to issue order to transfer petitioner to a place which is situated beyond the radius of 150 kms. Learned counsel also submitted that no exceptional circumstance have been shown in the impugned transfer order, which warranted for issuance of the same. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that this petition be allowed and the impugned transfer order be quashed. 4. Mr. Bhardwaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents relied on the communication dated 6.01.2011 placed on record alongwith objections. The subject matter of said communication is "Amendment in Transfer & Mobility Policy-2006 for Supervisory, Clerical and Subordinate Staff". The learned counsel invited attention of the court to paragraph 5.7 and submitted that transfer order was required to be approved by the Competent Authority, which requirement has been complied with and reference in this behalf was made to the communication dated 22.02.2011. The learned counsel invited attention of the court to paragraph 5.7 and submitted that transfer order was required to be approved by the Competent Authority, which requirement has been complied with and reference in this behalf was made to the communication dated 22.02.2011. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner remained posted for a period of 18 years at one place and because of exceptional circumstances, transfer of the petitioner was ordered. 5. In order to appreciate the issue raised, it is appropriate to take note of paragraph 5.7 of the Amendment policy 2006 : "5.7. Transfer of an employee from one station to another shall ordinarily be restricted to a radius of 150 kms. from his present station of posting. However, in exceptional circumstances, where the requirement or need of the Company are not found to be met by restricting a particular transfer to a radius of 150 kms., the General Manager (Personnel) may approve transfer of an employee beyond the radius of 150 kms. But not beyond 200 kms. Provided that where, for the purpose of fulfilling organizational requirements the competent Authority considers it absolutely necessary to transfer employees between two stations, say A and B, located beyond a distance of 150 kms. (or 200 Kms., as the case may be) such transfer shall be effected by involving an intermediary station(s), say C, i.e. transferring one employee from A to C and then another employee from C to B, so as to ensure that the distance between A and C and also between C and B is not more than 150 kms (or 200 kms., as the case may be." 6. The Competent Authority before according approval to transfer order was duty bound to record the reasons to show that it was 'absolutely necessary' to transfer the petitioner beyond the radius of 150 kms. Neither the transfer order, nor the approval order indicate as to why it was found 'absolutely necessary' to transfer the petitioner beyond the radius of 150 kms. Explanation tendered in this regard in the reply affidavit/objections is that petitioner remained posted at one place for about 18 years and it is for this reason, it was found necessary to transfer her beyond 150 kms. 7. The expression "absolutely necessary to transfer" is not defined in transfer policy. Explanation tendered in this regard in the reply affidavit/objections is that petitioner remained posted at one place for about 18 years and it is for this reason, it was found necessary to transfer her beyond 150 kms. 7. The expression "absolutely necessary to transfer" is not defined in transfer policy. Such expression by its common sense would mean that some circumstances which are of compelling nature impelled to order transfer beyond 150 kms. The petitioner remained posted at one place of posting for 18 long years, it is not her fault. It is the employer, who has allowed her to remain posted at one place. Obviously, work of the petitioner for this long tenure must have been required al that place. Her remaining posted at one place can not be attributed to her. The petitioner can be transferred to another place of posting, as the transfer is exigency of service, but no reasonable ground for transferring the petitioner beyond the radius of 150 kms, is given, except the explanation that she remained posted at one place for 18 long years. The explanation given to attract expression "absolutely necessary" can not be said to mean to be one as has been tendered in this case. So, explanation given to cater the requirement of "absolutely necessary" can not be pressed into service for transferring the petitioner beyond the radius of 150 kms. 8. The respondents are duty bound to follow the transfer policy in letter and sprit. In addition, the transfer order in a case of like nature can be issued only in exceptional circumstances. No exceptional reason has been brought to the notice of the court. 9. The explanation given to sustain transfer order can not be accepted by a reasonable mind. 10. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of in the following manner: By issuing writ of certiorari, order dated 24.01.2011, issued by the Regional Manager is quashed. The respondents are, however, at liberty to pass fresh order for petitioner's transfer, if same is required to be passed in the interest of administration and such action shall strictly be taken in accordance with the transfer policy.