Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is a member of the Central Industrial Security Force holding the rank of Constable. He has filed the present writ petition, challenging the order, dated 6. 2009. 3. By the said order, the petitioner was informed that he was transferred from Neyveli Lignite Corporation, Neyveli to their unit at Vallimalai (State of Kerala). 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition mainly on the ground that his younger son is studying 10th standard and therefore, his presence is required. The petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Director of School Education and others Vs. O.Karuppadevan and another reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 666. In that case, the Supreme Court with its extraordinary power vested under Article 142 of the Constitution of India granted the relief to a civilian Government servant and directed the authorities to retain him in the same place till the end of an academic year. 5. The Supreme Court did not lay down any law in this regard. However, the petitioner was able to persuade the learned Judge to grant an interim order basing upon the said judgment of the Supreme Court, on 16. 2009. 6. On the contrary, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Major General J.K.Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others reported in 2005 (7) SCC 227 , deprecated the practice of courts interfering with orders of transfer of members of the Armed Forces. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: "12. 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 the 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." 7. 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." 7. It is rather unfortunate that the counsel for the petitioner, who is aware of the said decision, never brought it to the notice of this court and appraised it with the correct legal position with regard to limitation in interfering with the orders of transfer of members of the Armed Forces and the scope of judicial review over their transfers. 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.