HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.9786 of 2010 Date: April 27, 2010 Between: Rajendra Kumar Sahu, S/o. Birendra Chandra Sahu, aged about 39 years, Occ: Asst. Sub-Inspector (Pharma), 58 BN, CRPF, Warangal District … Petitioner And Union of India, represented by its Director, Medical, Directorate of Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector (Pharmacist), in the Central Reserve Police Force, attached to 58t h Battalion, filed this writ petition questioning Order No.T-IX-1/2010-MED-3 (Pharma), dated 31-03-2010, transferring his services from 58th Battalion to 170th Battalion, i.e. from Warangal to Bijapur (Chhattisgarh). 2. The petitioner, who joined Central Reserve Police Force as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 25-10-2000, served at different places and posted to 58th Battalion, CRPF, Warangal on 26-03-2009. It is stated that when summer chain transfer applications were called for seeking choice of posting, the petitioner made an application opting three places of posting, but the impugned order is issued transferring his services to 170th Battalion, i.e. Bijapur (Chhattisgarh) without considering the places opted by him. It is stated that, aggrieved of the impugned order, he filed representation dated 08-04-2010 to the first respondent, explaining his difficulties, and requested to post him at the places he opted for in the application or in the alternative to retain him at 58th Battalion, Warangal. The said representation is stated to be pending consideration. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S. Nanda, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Merely because the petitioner submitted application to the respondents exercising his option and requested three places of posting, he cannot question the action of the respondents in not posting him in any of the places he requested. Transfer is an incidence of service. An employee working on a transferable post has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is the choice of the employer to determine, as to the place and for how long, the services of an employee are required. A transfer order cannot be interfered with, which is made for administrative reasons, unless the same is made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of mala fides. The impugned transfer order issued by the respondents does not violate any of the legal rights of the petitioner. Hence, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order. However, as the petitioner has filed representation dated 08- 04-2010, requesting to post him in any of the three places he opted or in the alternative to retain him at the present station, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 08- 04-2010 and take an appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) April 27, 2010 MRR