HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12610 of 2010 Dated: 04-06-2010 Between: N.C.Biswas. … Petitioner And The Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Southern Sector Head Quarters, Chennai & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12610 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Head Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. During the year 2006, when he was at Nayveli, at his request, he was transferred and posted at the 2nd respondent-Museum at Hyderabad. It is the grievance of the petitioner that now, respondents have illegally transferred him again to Nellore. Petitioner seeks declaration to declare the transfer as illegal, mainly only on one ground that his children are studying at Hyderabad. Neither the copy of transfer order nor the moment order is placed on record. Even according to the petitioner, after his transfer from Nayveli to Hyderabad on his request in 2006, he has completed more than three years of service at Hyderabad. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in transferring him to Nellore. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that a representation is also made to the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, South Zone, and the same is pending, but however, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents Smt. C. Vani Reddy, submits that the representation made by the petitioner is already rejected. A further request is made by the learned counsel for petitioner, to permit the petitioner to retain his residential quarter for some time in view of the fact that his children are admitted in the educational institutions in Hyderabad, and it is very difficult to get alternate accommodation immediately. It is open for the petitioner to make a representation for retention of his residential quarter, but on the aforesaid ground, this Court cannot interfere with the order of transfer. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to make a representation for retention of residential quarter for sometime. If any such representation is made, it is equally open for the respondents to consider the same without reference to any of the observations made in this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th June 2010 ajr