WP(C) 2151/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. Goswami, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ba ruah, learned Central Government Counsel. Having regard to the relief prayed for and the order, which I pr opose to pass, this petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself. Shortly put the petitioner’s pleaded case is that the petitioner had joined the disciplined force presently designated as Sashastra Seema Bal (h ereafter for short referred to as the SSB) and is posted as Assistant Commandant in the 17th Battalion, Bhairabkunda, in the district of Udalguri. He is schedul ed to retire from service in the month of November, 2009. By the impugned order dated 20/5/2009 issued by the Assistant Director (PERS-I), he has been transferr ed to FTR Guwahati, vice Mr. Z. Nakhro, Second in Command, 21st Bn. Kishanganj. Contending that having regard to his impending superannuation, the impugned orde r of transfer is in violation of the transfer guidelines governing the Force and that the same, if implemented, would dislocate all his plans relating to his da ughter’s marriage to be shortly solemnised, the petitioner has in the meantime s ubmitted a representation before the Director General, Sashatra Seema Bal, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, on 21/5/2009. The petitioner has asserted on oath that the sai d representation has not yet been disposed of. It has also been maintained that he has not yet been released from the present posting at Bhairabkunda. Reiterating the above, Mr. Goswami has urged that in the interes t of justice, the impugned order of transfer needs interference by this Court. Mr. Baruah on the other hand submits that as transfer is an inci dence of service, the impugned order having been passed on administrative exigen cy, this Court, in exercise of its power of judicial review would not intervene. The petitioner’s assertion that he is due to retire in the month of November, 2009 is not in dispute. The impugned order of transfer, therefore, comes in the wake of his superannuation, which is hardly six months away. Claus e 10 of the Transfer Guidelines (Annexure C to the writ petition) leaves the con cerned authority of the SSB with a discretion to provide such an officer with a posting in the home town or a place of his choice subject to availability of vac ancies and suitability for the job to be assessed by them. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s representation as above ought to be considered and disposed of on merits by the Director General, Sashatra Seema Bal, R.K. Puram, New Delhi, before whom the same had been submitted. In the above premise, without offering any comment in praesenti on the validity or otherwise of the impugned transfer, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director General, Sashatra Seema Bal, R.K. Puram, Ne w Delhi, to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 21/5/2 009 within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner would submit a copy of this order before the said authority through a ppropriate channel within a week herefrom. The implementation of the impugned order of transfer, on the con siderations as above, would remain stayed for a period of two weeks herefrom. No costs.