ORDER 1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.01.2023, passed by the Secretary (Admn.), Jodhpur Discom, Jodhpur on the ground that the same is violative of the transfer policy of the respondent - Nigam. 2. The concise facts which are germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner working as Assistant Account Officer-II (AAO-II) was transferred from Bajju to Hanumangarh vide order dated 12.08.2021. Before he could complete the requisite tenure of two years, he has been again transferred to Bhadra in the office of AEn (Rural) Bhadra per-viam order dated 13.01.2023. 3. Mr. Bhari, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards the transfer policy dated 28.11.2017 and submitted that an employee cannot be transferred before completion of two years as per para 2.1 of the transfer policy. 4. Mr. Anil Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent -Nigam submitted that the transfer is an incident of service and as per condition 3 of para 2.1 of the policy, the Managing Director can relax the condition and transfer an employee before completion of two years' period. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Admittedly, petitioner's transfer has been effected before he could compete period of two years at Hanumangarh. The impugned transfer is thus, clearly contrary to transfer policy. 7. So far as Mr. Upadhyay's contention that the Managing Director can relax any condition of the policy is concerned, a perusal of para 4 shows that it is a case specific provision and has been incorporated in order to deal with specific cases. Whereas the present order dated 13.01.2023 is a general order effecting transfer of 14 persons and no reasons or documents have been placed by the Nigam showing that petitioner's case was separately dealt with. 8. That apart, para 4 provides for relaxation in appropriate case. In the present case, no reason has been assigned as to why it was necessary to transfer the petitioner from Hanumangarh to Bhadra prematuredly - before he completes two years' period in Hanumangarh. 9. This Court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner's transfer is contrary to para 2 of the transfer policy. 10. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2023 is quashed qua the petitioner. 11. 9. This Court has no hesitation in holding that petitioner's transfer is contrary to para 2 of the transfer policy. 10. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2023 is quashed qua the petitioner. 11. Needless to observe that on completion of two years' period, the respondent - Nigam shall be free to transfer the petitioner, if administrative exigency so warrants. 12. Stay petition also stands disposed of.