JUDGMENT : BUDI HABUNG, J. Heard Mr. Somanath Maharana, petitioner-in-person. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner-in-person, who was serving as Commandant and posted in 142 BN CRPF, Golaghat, Assam, has challenged the Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 issued by the Directorate General, CRPF (respondent No. 2), by which he was transferred and posted to South Zone situated at Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad (T.S.) 500005 before completion of his normal tenure of 3 (three) years. 3 . The petitioner contended that as per Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014, the normal tenure from Assistant Commandant to DIG would be 3 (three) years. However, the petitioner, having joined the present place of posting at Golaghat, Assam on 28.03.2023, had not completed the said tenure of 3 (three) years. The petitioner submits that the impugned Transfer Order dated 10.01.2025 has been issued before completion of 3 (three) years tenure and without assigning any reason; as such, it has been issued in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned CGC for the respondents submits that Standing Order No. 07/2014 dated 24.11.2014 has been superseded by subsequent Standing Order No. 5/22 dated 27.09.2022, whereby, at Para 3 (c), it provides that “if it is found that an officer needs to be transferred before completion of normal tenure due to administrative or operational requirements, his case will be forwarded to the Directorate with reasons,” and Para No. 5(b) of the said Standing Order stipulates that, “As CRPF is a Central Armed Police Force of the Government of India constituted under a Special Act and is tasked with important operational duties regarding maintenance of the security of the nation, therefore, there are certain operational and administrative requirements of the Force. In view of such requirements, any officer may be posted to any Unit or office at any point of time”. The respondent further contends that it does not create any right for any officer for posting to a particular place or for a particular tenure, as mentioned in Para 5(a), and the transfer of the petitioner has been issued under the provisions of Para Nos. 3 (c) and 5(b) of Standing Order 5/22 on administrative as well as operational requirements of the force. 3 (c) and 5(b) of Standing Order 5/22 on administrative as well as operational requirements of the force. Further, it is submitted that no officer has any vested right to remain posted at a particular place and transfer can be effected at any time depending upon administrative requirements. In support of his submission, the learned CGC place reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in case of J. K. Bansal (Major General) vs. Union of India , reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227 , wherein, in paragraph-12 of the said judgment it has been held that “It will be noticed that these decisions have been rendered in the case of civilian employees or those who are working in Public Sector Undertakings. The scope of interference by courts in regard to members of armed forces is far more limited and narrow. It is for the higher authorities to decide when and where a member of the armed forces should be posted. The Courts should be extremely slow in interfering with an order of transfer of such category of persons and unless an exceptionally strong case is made out, no interference should be made”. 5. The respondent has further contended that, on the basis of certain complaints, a discreet inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein allegations of misuse of official position and conduct affecting the discipline of the battalion have been made against the petitioner. 6. However, the petitioner, by way of filing a rejoinder, has denied all allegations made against him and has placed on record a report of the preliminary investigation findings, wherein, it is stated that, based on thorough investigation and analysis, all allegations made against the officer are found to be baseless and factually incorrect. 7. The petitioner has also contended that due to premature transfer, he would fall short of the required field command service of 3 (three) months for consideration for future promotion from the post of Commandant to the post of Deputy Inspector General. 8. In this regard, the learned CGC for the respondents submitted that the respondents have clarified that, for promotion to the rank of Deputy Inspector General, an officer is required to complete 20 years of Group-A service, and the petitioner still has sufficient time for consideration for promotion to the rank of DIG, i.e., around 8–10 years, to fulfil all such requirements of mandatory field service. 9. 9. I have heard the petitioner-in-person as well as the learned CGC and perused the documents relied upon. 10. It is well settled that transfer is an incident of service and an employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. However, at the same time, where a normal tenure is prescribed, ordinarily an officer should not be transferred before completion of such tenure unless justified by administrative reasons. In the instant case, no such reasons for the transfer of the petitioner have been mentioned in the impugned transfer order. 11. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been relieved from his posting place at Golaghat, Assam, and joined his new place of posting in the South Zone and is drawing salary from there. No interim stay was granted by this Court. Further, during the pendency of the writ petition, more than 3 (three) years have now been completed. 12. And so far as the plea of the petitioner relating to promotion is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submissions of the respondents that the petitioner has adequate time to complete the required service conditions, as he still has around 8–10 years to complete his remaining mandatory field service before he becomes due for consideration for promotion to the rank of DIG and, therefore, no immediate prejudice is caused. 13. In view of the above facts and subsequent developments of the factual situation of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned transfer order at this stage. 14. However, considering that the petitioner was transferred before completion of the normal tenure of 3 (three) years without assigning any reason in the order, and also considering the disputed nature of the allegations based on which the impugned transferred order is sought to have been issued which, after investigation, were found to be baseless and factually incorrect, this Court deems it appropriate to grant limited relief to the petitioner. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation before the authority within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of this order indicating his preferred place/zone of posting. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation before the authority within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of this order indicating his preferred place/zone of posting. Upon such representation being submitted, the competent authority shall consider the same sympathetically, keeping in view the petitioner’s service profile, and pass a reasoned order within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. If any action is proposed against the petitioner on the basis of the alleged misconduct, the same shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and after following due process. 16. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.