THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12539 of 2010 ORDER: In this writ petition, petitioner, who is working as Naik Clerk in Military College of EME, Secunderabad - fourth respondent, has questioned the movement order, dated 01.06.2010 passed by the respondents transferring his services from Secunderabad to 605 EME BN C/O 99 APO, which is in Assam, on the ground of turnover policy. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already worked in Field Stations and as such he is entitled to be posted in peace stations for a period of 2 to 3 years at a stretch. On the other hand, on instructions, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General that the petitioner was transferred on administrative grounds and he has no right to seek to continue in any particular station for any particular period. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already worked in two peace stations earlier and is working in Secunderabad from 13.10.2008. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in MAJOR GENERAL J.K.BANSAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS[1]. Though at the present station, the petitioner is working from 13.10.2008, it is to be noted that he worked at Secunderabad on an earlier term. It is mentioned that turnover policy for posting in peace areas from two to three years is for guidance and implementation to the extent possible by the respondents but under the guise of such policy, the petitioner, who is in the service of armed force, cannot seek retention at the present station by seeking directions from this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is to be noted that previously he worked in peace stations, as such, he has no right to seek his continuance at Secunderabad. In the judgment relied on by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the case of the army personnel for transfer, held that the scope of interference with such orders is much more narrower and limited than in case of civilian employees and further held that unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference with the transfer order. In view of the said judgment and as the petitioner also served earlier term in Secunderabad, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order transferring the services of the petitioner to 605 EME BN C/O 99 APO, which is in Assam. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that wife of the petitioner is not well. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents for modification of the impugned order on the aforementioned ground. However, this Court cannot issue directions to the respondents as prayed for by the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents within a period of one week from today and is equally open for the respondents to consider such representation on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th JUNE, 2010. Note: issue copy by 09.06.2010. kvni [1] AIR 2005 SC 3341