WP(C) 5356/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE U. BHUYAN (Goel,J.) This petition has been preferred against order of the Central Administrative Tri bunal directing the petitioner to consider representation of the respondent for posting at Kolkota in the manner indicated in the order. The operative part of t he order is as under : Taking into consideration, the entire conspectus of the facts, I, hereby direct the applicant to join at New Delhi as per the directions contained in the trans fer order, as early as possible, but not later than two weeks from today. Furthe r, respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the applicant for his Kolkata posting. He should be given choice posting within a period of f our months from the date of receipt of this order and to the best possible exten t he should be accommodated at Kolkqta. If it is not possible for some unavoidab le reasons, speaking and reasoned order should be passed, after providing adequa te opportunity to the applicant of being heard. In that eventuality he should be accommodated at the station nearest to Kolkata as per the choice of the applica nt. Respondents are hereby restrained to fill up any vacant post of Assistant Di rector or equivalent thereto at Kolkata without considering the case of the appl icant. The respondent is working in the Tourism Department of the petitioner. He has re ndered 22 years of service. He remained posted at Kolkata for about 13 years and thereafter he was posted at Manipur and after completing the tenure at Manipur he has been transferred to Delhi. His grievance was that as per Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 a person given posting in the North East Region has to be considered for posting to a station of his choice, as far as possible. However, the respon dent was not considered for posting at Kolkata although his wife is at Kolkata. Appreciating his grievance, the learned Tribunal held that the petitioner may co nsider his representation for posting at Kolkata and give choice posting within four months accommodating him at Kolkata to the best possible extent. If it was not possible, a speaking and reasoned order may be passed and he may be accommod ated at a station nearest to Kolkata. If any other person is to be posted at Ko lkata, the respondent may consider the case of the respondent first. We have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Central Govt. Counsel, appearing for the pe titioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and no employee has a right to insist on particular place of posting an d, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. On due consideration of the submission, we are of the view that while transfer i s an exigency of service, the department itself has issued a Memorandum assuring posting of choice to the employees on completion of their tenure in the North E ast Region. Once such a memorandum has been issued, the same has to be adhered t o, to the extent possible. The order passed by the learned Tribunal purports to enforce the spirit of the memorandum issued by the petitioner itself. There is, thus, no ground to interfere. However, time period of four months stipulated in the impugned order is extended by another two months, as prayed. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.