The central legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of government servants, as well as the applicability of the CRPF Act and relevant legal provisions to requests for retention.

1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition with a second round of litigation. The petitioner is a Head Constable working in CRPF, Avadi under the CRPF Act. When the petitioner was transferred on promotion to the post of Additional Sub Inspector at the Unit at Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner filed W.P.No.17103 of 2012 seeking to transfer the order of promotion cum transfer dated 28.5.2012. The petitioner did not challenge either the jurisdiction of the authority to transfer him or attribute any mala fides. The only ground raised by her was that she is having no issues even after the Marriage and she is undergoing allopathy treatment for over 5 years. Therefore, having failed in it, she started to take treatment in Ayurvedha. In the middle of the treatment, if she is transferred, her desire to have a child will be thwarted. She also claimed that the Additional Director General of Police, CRPF, Hyderabad made a remark that she may be retained at the CRPF Avadi during the treatment. However, this Court, after notice to the respondents passed a final order on 2.8.2012. In that order, this Court directed the petitioner's representation to be considered within one week regarding her declining promotion, which was given in the form of additional affidavit. The respondents without considering her representation filed a Writ Appeal No.2549 of 2012 challenging the direction issued by the learned Judge.

2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner preferred a Contempt Petition alleging that the order has been disobeyed. The Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on the ground that the order of the learned Judge has been complied with by the respondents. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, she should come independently challenging the said order. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the second round of litigation.

3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has chosen to challenge an order dated 29.8.2012 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Avadi and after setting out the same seeks for retention of the petitioner at the CRPF, Avadi.

4. When the Writ Petition came up on 19.12.2012, this Court while ordering notice of motion granted interim stay. Aggrieved by the grant of interim stay, the respondents have filed M.P.No.1 of 2013 seeking to vacate the interim order supported by a counter affidavit dated 2.1.2013.

5. The only question to be considered is whether the order dated 29.8.2012 is liable to be interfered by this Court. By the impugned order dated 29.08.2012, the authorities have rejected reconsideration of the petitioner's request to forgo promotion and retention in the same Centre at Avadi and by communication dated 03.09.2012, she was informed that her request for forgoing promotion was denied.

6. The contention of the petitioner was that Para 8(b) of the Standing Order No.2/2007 is supplementary to the rules by which a member of the Force shall make a written request to the appointing authority to allow to continue at the present place of post for one year and therefore, refusal of promotion was illegal. It was stated that the third respondent gave consent through his representative that they will exercise discretion as per the instruction given by various orders of the Government of India. The petitioner placed reliance upon the instructions given in Para 17.12 of Smamy's Manual on Establishment and Administration regarding promotion. It is necessary to refer to the said passage which reads as below:

“Refusal of promotion

17.12. When a Government employee does not want to accept a promotion which is offered to him, he may make a written request that he may not be promoted and the request will be considered by the appointing authority, taking relevant aspects into consideration. If the reasons adduced for refusal of promotion are acceptable to the appointing authority, the next person in the select list may be promoted. However, since it may not be administratively possi