WA 2/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16/11/2007 passed in WP(C) 5733/ 2007 negating the writ appellant’s challenge to the order dated 28/12/2006 of th e Officer-in-Charge, GREF Records, the instant appeal has been filed seeking red ress. We have heard Mr. T.C. Khatri, learned Sr. Counsel for the appel lant and Mr. D. Choudhury, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the r espondents. The appellant who is continuing as an welder with the General Re serve Engineering Force (for short hereafter referred to as the GREF) having uns uccessfully pleaded with the respondent authorities for his choice posting to Bh utan Compensatory Area (for short hereafter referred to as the BCA), Unit 1055 F ield Workshop (GREF), Bhutan, in terms of prevalent norms, he approached this Co urt eventually with WP(C) 5009/2006 complaining against the inaction on their pa rt. This Court, by order dated 4/12/2006, closed the writ petition with a direct ion to the concerned authority to dispose of his representation dated 2/8/2006 t hen pending on the issue. By order dated 28/12/2006, his representation having b een rejected, he has returned to this Court with WP(C) 5733/2007, which has sinc e been dismissed by the judgment and order impugned in the instant appeal. The learned Sr. Counsel has insistently urged that the reasons r ecorded in the order dated 28/12/2006 being wholly inconsistent with the materia l facts borne out by the appellant’s service records, the same is nonest in law. According to him, the learned Single Judge having left out of its consideration this vital aspect of the controversy, the impugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with in the interest of justice. Mr. Choudhury on the other hand relying on the relevant excerpts of the service books of the appellant has argued that the reasons contained in the order dated 28/12/2006 in support of the rejection of the appellant’s repres entation are clearly endorsed thereby and, therefore, the instant challenge is w holly misconceived and liable to be rejected in limine. A plain reading of the order dated 28/12/2006 without dilating o n the factual details reveals two decisive norms for entertaining a request for transfer and/or posting in the BCA under the GREF. (a). Discipline criteria:- Individual should have not been awarded any major pu nishment during the entire service and no minor punishment during the last ten y ears. (b). ACR criteria:- Individual should have earned a minimum of three very good and two good grading in ACR in the last five years of service. Tested on the above norms, the concerned respondent authority re jected the appellant’s request for such transfer on the following grounds:- (a) He had been awarded seven punishments during his entire service in GREF out of which two punishments have been during the last 10 years. (b) He has not earned the requisite ACR grading in last five years of servic e. On a scrutiny of the excerpts of the service book of the petitioner his gradings in the ACR for the years period 2001 to 2005 and punishments for the relevant p eriod are discernible as follows:- 2001 Average 2002 Average 2003 Average 2004 Average 2005 Average Punishments:- 1996 One minor punishment 1997 One minor punishment As disclosed by the service book of the appellant, we are of the unhesitant opin ion that the reasons recorded in the order dated 28/12/2006 can not be denounced as illegal, arbitrary and without any factual basis. In that view of the matter , the challenge laid in the instant appeal lacks merit. The appeal stands dismis sed. No costs.