1. The impugned order of deferment issued by the respondents 1 and 2 in proceedings dated 27.12.2017 in respect of the transfer of the writ petitioner from Bhavini, Kalpakkam to Jharkand, ES is under challenge in this Writ Petition.

2. The Writ Petitioner is working as a Head Constable/GD in fourth respondent/CISF Unit. The petitioner was appointed in CISF on 01.03.1988 and he has already served in many parts of the Country. Further, the petitioner states that he had served for a period of more than eleven years out of his home zone, and therefore, he is entitled to continue his work in Kalpakkam as per his request.

3. The petitioner served in the States of Orissa, Uttar Pradhesh, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat and the Union Territory of Delhi apart from the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner was posted at Bhavini, Kalpakkam since 01.11.2012. Thus, he is serving in the present station for about 5½ years, the petitioner is having unlimited record of service.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner vehemently contended that the transfer policy in force has not been followed by the respondents. No doubt, the writ petitioner is continuing in the present station with effect from 01.11.2012. However, he is entitled to deferment of transfer on account of the fact that his daughter is studying XII Standard in Kendriya Vidhyalaya School at Chennai. Therefore, he is entitled for a deferment of minimum period of one year and the benefit of same has not been extended and the order impugned is absolutely non-speaking.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further proceeded by stating that the transfer policy was issued in Circular No. 22 of 2017 dated 25.09.2017. The circular is a transfer policy which is to be followed scrupulously by the Competent Authority at the time of considering the deferment application. The writ petitioner submitted his application before the Authorities regarding the issue of deferment of his transfer to Jharkand. The writ petitioner refers Clause 26 of the said circular, which stipulates the extension of tenure on education ground and the same reads as follows:

“NGOs will be permitted an extension in his/her present unit for one year if his/her ward is studying in 10th or 12th class in the current academic year and staying with him at the place of posting. He/she will not be given extension in the next year on the ground of 2nd ward/wards studying in 10th or 12th class in the subsequent year. This policy is applicable only for two living children and can be availed once for one child's education. However, if there are operational and administrative considerations, these facilities would be curtailed.”

6. It is contended that the impugned order is non-speaking and, no reasons are provided for not considering the request of the writ petitioner for deferment. The impugned order simply states that the case of the writ petitioner was considered and the deferment is rejected. Thus, the policy relating to the transfer and deferment issue in Circular No. 22 of 2017 dated 25.09.2017 had not been considered by the respondents at the time of scrutinizing the application submitted by the writ petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that already two deferments were granted to the writ petitioner during the academic year 2015-2016. One deferment was given to the writ petitioner on the ground that his daughter was studying in IX Standard and entering X Standard in the year 2015. Once again, the writ petitioner submitted an application seeking deferment of his transfer during the year 2016-2017 on the ground that his wife was taking treatment in Appllo Hospital, Chennai. Considering the aforesaid application, one more deferment was granted during the year 2016-2017. The present application submitted by the writ petitioner is the third application seeking deferment of transfer con