JUDGMENT : Mohammad Rafiq, J. This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2017, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant-R.K. Sharma, who is working as Assistant General Manager at Sanganer Airport with the respondents, challenging the order dated 3.3.2017 vide which he was transferred from Jaipur to Delhi and the order dated 17.5.2017, rejecting his representation filed against that transfer order, has been dismissed. 2. Shri Suresh Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was transferred to Mumbai vide order dated 1.2.2016 on promotion to the post of Dy. General Manager (Commercial). He had forgone the promotion due to his family circumstances as his mother aged 83 years is bed ridden and out of his two daughters, one is studying at Jaipur. Since the appellant is due to retire in April, 2019, he is left with only two years to serve the respondent. Clause 6 of the Transfer Policy of AAI provides for transfer nearer to home town or exemption from transfer, of employee, who is going to retire within five years. As per clause 3(ii) of the Circular dated 27.02.2014, the period of superannuation zone has now been reduced from five years to three years. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not following the ratio of the judgement of Division Bench of this Court in Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Mehta vs. Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal & Ors., RLR 2001 (1) 398 wherein it was held that the employee should not be transferred if his retirement is due within next two years. Similar view has been taken by division bench in Dev Prakash Chugh vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2006 (1) LLN 975. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has not even properly examined the order dated 17.5.2017 by which the representation of the appellant dated 6.3.2016 was rejected. It is wrongly stated in the rejection order that the appellant did not make request for exemption under coming superannuation zone before his actual transfer. In fact, such request was made by the appellant on 11.2.2016 followed by another representation on 6.3.2017. The representation has thus been rejected on wrong reasons, which reflects non-application of mind by the competent authority. 5. In fact, such request was made by the appellant on 11.2.2016 followed by another representation on 6.3.2017. The representation has thus been rejected on wrong reasons, which reflects non-application of mind by the competent authority. 5. Learned counsel submitted that respondent nos.5 to 7, who are similarly situated officers, have been allowed to stay in Delhi for last more than 25 years and therefore, action of the respondents in not accommodating the appellant at Jaipur is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Muralidhara Menon & Anr., (2009) 9 SCC 304 . Learned counsel argued that the judgement of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Joginder Singh Dhatt- AIR 1993 SC 2486 , relied by learned Single Judge, was a case where the concerned employee was charge sheeted and therefore he was transferred to ensure that he did not interfere with the inquiry proceedings. Such are not the facts of this case. 7. Shri Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the appeal and submitted that the earlier writ petition, bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6528/2017, of the petitioner was disposed off ex-parte by this Court vide order dated 4.5.2017 requiring the appellant to make a representation within three days and directing the respondents to consider and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and policy in vogue as expeditiously as possible. It was further directed that until decision on the representation of the appellant, the order of transfer shall not be acted upon. Learned counsel submitted that appellant concealed the fact from the Court even before the writ petition was argued before this Court on 4.5.2017 that he was relieved on 30.4.2017 pursuant to the earlier order of his transfer dated 3.3.2017. Thus, the order of transfer had already been acted upon. Had the Court been apprised of this fact, the direction not to act upon the order of transfer would not be passed. 8. Thus, the order of transfer had already been acted upon. Had the Court been apprised of this fact, the direction not to act upon the order of transfer would not be passed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that clause 6.3 of the AAI transfer policy with regard to transfer in or nearer to home town provided that when a person is due to retire within 5 years (now 3 years) and could not be accommodated nearer to the home town, he may be exempted from transfer during the last 5 years (now 3 years) of service before retirement. This clause is subject to the note given there below, which stipulates that the facility of transfer to home-town or nearest station thereof, when in the superannuation zone, will not apply to officers, who for personal reasons have on their request been given deferment/cancellation/ exemption of transfer to out of region/tenure station during their regular turn till they fulfill the requirements of the same. Such accommodation has already been given to appellant once. Moreover, as per the transfer policy, the appellant did not make any request for exemption of transfer on any ground prior to the passing of the transfer order. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment, we find that the learned Single Judge, after rejection of the representation of the appellant, did not interfere with the order of transfer and in our view, rightly, observing that the transfer of an employee is a condition of service and is not to be interfered with, unless the order of transfer is passed in violation of statutory transfer policy or in violation of fundamental rights or the order is malafide. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Joginder Singh Dhatt, supra, wherein the transfer order was interfered with by the High Court holding it to be contrary to the instructions, for it was effected in mid term and the employee was due to retire within two years. The Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court observing thus: “This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. The Supreme Court set aside the order of High Court observing thus: “This Court has time and again expressed its disapproval of the Courts below interfering with the order of transfer of public servant from one place to another. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer. The High Court grossly erred in quashing the order of transfer of the respondent from Hoshiarpur to Sangrur. The High Court was not justified in extending its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a matter where, on the face of it, no injustice was caused.” 10. Even though it may be true that the employee concerned, who was transferred in Joginder Singh Dhatt, supra was chargesheeted, was one of the consideration to ensure that he did not interfere with the inquiry proceedings, nevertheless, observations aforesaid fell from the Supreme Court in response to the argument that the transfer order was contrary to the instructions of the department, being a mid term transfer and the employee was left with less than two years before superannuation. 11. Herein, the note appended to clause 6.3 of AAI Transfer Policy, on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the appellant, itself states that the facility of transfer to home-town or nearest station thereof, when in the superannuation zone, will not apply to officers, who for personal reasons, have on their request been given deferment/cancellation/ exemption of transfer to out of region/tenure station, during their regular turn till they fulfill the requirements of the same. Concededly, the appellant was proposed to be transferred on promotion from Jaipur to Mumbai by order dated 1.2.2016 and the appellant by forgoing the aforesaid promotion, sought deferment of that order of transfer and, therefore, that clause as such may not be applicable to the appellant. 12. For the facility of reference, Clause 6 of the transfer policy for ready reference is reproduced as under: “6. Transfer to Home Town: 6.1 Persons who are within 5 years of reaching the age of superannuation shall be posted as far as possible in or nearer to their home town, provided a request is received from the concerned official for posting to home town/opted station. Transfer to Home Town: 6.1 Persons who are within 5 years of reaching the age of superannuation shall be posted as far as possible in or nearer to their home town, provided a request is received from the concerned official for posting to home town/opted station. The cut off date for determining 5 years period will be taken as 31st March. 6.2 In the event of transfer consequent to promotion, the above provision shall not apply. 6.3 When a person is due to retire within 5 years and could not be accommodated nearer to the home town, he may be exempted from transfer during the last 5 years of service before retirement. Note: The facility of transfer to home-town or nearest station thereof when in the superannuation zone, will not apply to officers who for personal reasons have on their request been given deferment/cancellation/exemption of transfer to out of region/tenure station during their regular turn till they fulfill the requirements of the same.” 13. Clause 6.1 merely provides that persons who are within 5 years (now 3 years) of reaching the age of superannuation, shall be posted as far as possible in or nearer to their home town, provided a request is received from the concerned official. In this case, as per the respondents, such request was received later than the order of transfer was passed. Be that as it may, clause 6.2 provides that in the event of transfer consequent to promotion, the above provision shall not apply. In this case, despite this provision, the respondent acceded to the request of the appellant to defer his transfer, consequent upon his promotion, by accepting his request to forgo the promotion. Then Clause 6.3 provides that when a person is due to retire within 5 years (now 3 years) and could not be accommodated nearer to the home town, may be exempted from transfer during the last 5 years (now to 3 years) of service before retirement. (underlying ours) 14. Stand which the respondents have now taken in the order rejecting the representation vide memo dated 17.5.2017 that annual transfers in the Department of Commercial have been effected after due deliberations at Highest level of management considering the fact that “Corporation Hqrs. and RHQs. (underlying ours) 14. Stand which the respondents have now taken in the order rejecting the representation vide memo dated 17.5.2017 that annual transfers in the Department of Commercial have been effected after due deliberations at Highest level of management considering the fact that “Corporation Hqrs. and RHQs. of AAI are poorly strengthened, which are required to be reinforced to achieve the objectives, shall have to be read in the light of the transfer policy, which provides that the employee concerned “may be” accommodated in or nearer to the home town, “as far as possible”. This cannot be said to be a mandatory prescription. In our considered view, the order rejecting representation reflects due application of mind. Reasons assigned by the respondents in rejecting representation of the appellant in para 5 to 7 of the order/memorandum dated 17.5.2017 are eminently just and valid, which read as under: “5. Annual transfers in the Department of Commercial have been effected after due deliberations at Highest level of management considering the fact that Corporate Hqrs. and RHQs of AAI are poorly strengthened which are required to be reinforced to achieve the objectives of Commercial Deptt. in AAI. Considering the suggestions of the steering committee, headed by Chairman, AAI, a conscious decision has been taken to strengthen corporate Hqrs and RHQS by mobilizing internal sources and as such your transfer from Jaipur to RHQ NR was considered in the interest of AAI. 6. Moreover, it is also a fact that in accordance with Transfer Policy you did not make any request for exemption from transfer on any grounds covered under Transfer Policy prior to your transfer orders. 7. It is pertinent to mention that in a normal course, your were considered for transfer to RHQ, WR, Mumbai and your transfer from Jaipur to RHQ, NR has been considered in the light of the Policy directions to keep the officer near to his hometown, as far as possible so that the interests of the organization are also kept in mind.” 15. In view of above, the cited precedents are distinguishable on facts and do not afford any help to the appellant. The impugned order dated 29.05.2017 cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 16. No case is made out for interference. The appeal is dismissed.