WP(C) 2121/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. BC Das, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. SC Kayal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6. The petitioner’s basic grievance made in this writ petition against the impugned order, dated 28-03-2011 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) is that the petitione r had come to be posted, in the State of Assam, by order, dated 16-02-1993, and since then, he has been in the State of Assam and as regards the deputation of t he Central Government employees to the States/Union Territories of the Northeast ern region, there is a policy of the Government to give chosen posting to those officers, who serve in the Northeastern region, but as far as the present petiti oner is concerned, though he had made, a representation, before the impugned tra nsfer order was made seeking that he be posted in Kolkata, which is nearer his h ometown, in Orissa, the petitioner has been transferred, by virtue of the impugn ed transfer order, to Patna. There is no doubt that there is a policy of the Central Government to post, so f ar as possible, a Central Government employee at his chosen place, if he happens to spent a period of three years of deputation in the States or Union Territori es of the Northeastern region. In the present case the petitioner should have been, ordinarily, given the posti ng of his choice inasmuch as he has served in the Northeastern region for the la st almost 18 years. At the same time, however, it is difficult to construe the p olicy guidelines aforementioned as conferring indefeasible right in an employee to demand that his transfer must be to a chosen place. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justic e, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to m ake appropriate representation to the respondents, particularly, the respondent No. 3, namely, Chairman, Inland Waterways Authority of India, Noida, UP. If the petitioner makes such a representation,, through proper channel, within a week f rom today, respondent No. 3 shall examine and consider the petitioner’s represen tation in the light of the relevant Government Policy and, then, pass appropriat e order in the matter. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed withi n a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The pet itioner may, while making the representation to the respondent No. 3, enclose, t herewith, a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition and annexure there to. Whatever decision is taken by the respondent No. 3, the s ame shall be communicated, in writing, to the petitioner and if the petitioner f eels aggrieved by the decision, which may be reached by the respondent No. 3, th e petitioner shall remain at liberty to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law. If the petitioner makes representation within the period as indicated hereinbefo re, the impugned transfer order shall remain suspended to the extent that the sa me governs the place of posting of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, name ly, Shri Prasanta Kumar, till the time the decision, on the petitioner’s represe ntation, as directed hereinabove, is taken by the respondents/authorities concer ned. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of. No order as to costs. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the respondents.