JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mohd. Atif, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for all the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of this petition has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.06.2022 whereby he has been transferred to Airport of Bhuvaneshwar from Airport of Varanasi while working as Sub-Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).

3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order for the reason that he has served for more that 11 years and 6 months out of home sector and as per their own policy of transfer and adjustment promulgated by the respondents, petitioner was entitled to be given posting in home sector. Learned counsel has also assailed the order on the ground that once he has been given posting in his home sector at Varanasi in the year 2018 after having served out at places of posting out of home sector, he could not have been declared as surplus staff to be adjusted at a different place out of his home sector. It is submitted that the persons junior to him were adjusted within the home sector by placing them from Varanasi to Patna. He in this regard has taken names of juniors to the petitioner namely, Anuprekha Kumari, Akshita Sinha and Bharat Chaubey who according to him in the first instance should have been placed out of his home sector. Thus he pleads discrimination meeted out to him in matter of transfer and posting.

4. In support of his above arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the transfer policy/rules framed by the department itself that provides for a tenural period to be spent by Constables, Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors at different sectors during service career and which would not include the period of basic training.

5. Vide paragraph 12 it is contended that the first, second, third and fourth tenure period of service are treated to be with a division of seven years as out of home sector, 12 years in home sector then again six years out of home sectors and the last four years in home sector. He submits that the petitioner having already spent more than 11 years and 6 months since the date of initial appointment in the year 2006, deserved to be posted in home sector and this is the reason perhaps why he was given posting at Varanasi on 03.04.2018. He submits that Varanasi is a place falling within his home sector because the petitioner's permanent residence is located at district Kaimur in the State of Bihar and Varanasi district falls within the eastern sector which includes the districts of Bihar vide Clause 13 of the transfer policy/rules.

6. Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the transfer and posting rules contain also discretionary powers of authority in matters of transfer and postings vide Clause 10(c) and Clause 39 (xx). According to him this transfer policy/rules would be laying down broad parameters for transfer and postings of the personnels and the final decision would rest with the competent authority of the C.I.S.F., inasmuch as vide Clause 39 (xx) these transfer rules would not come in the way of discretion of the competent authority in posting any personnel at a particular place even without assigning any reason. It is argued that transfer policy/rules or notifications or circulars by whatever name it is known are purely administrative instructions and are aimed at providing guidelines to meet administrative exegencies and are not enforceable as such.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner's application to give him posting at Patna which would fall within the home sector has already been rejected by the competent authority by passing order dated 14.06.2022, which is not under challenge.

8. In rejoinder to the above affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the policy lays down broad principles with discretionary powers vested with autho