ORDER By the Court.–Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the office order bearing No. 13898-906 dated 24th April, 2013 (Annexure-7) by which, he has been transferred from Training Centre and School, Border Security Force, Meru, Hazaribagh to 142 Battalion, Border Security Force, Assam. 3. The primary ground for assailing the impugned order of transfer on behalf of the petitioner is that while discharging internal security duty at Phulwara in Kashmir Valley, he had sustained bullet injury on his right leg which led to its amputation. The petitioner became disabled to the extent of 60% on account of such disability, as per certificate issued by the competent authority on 10th July, 1992. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, by Movement Order dated 3rd February, 2000 issued by the competent authority of his parent 142 Battalion, he was posted permanently at Training Centre and School, BSF, Hazaribagh (Annexure-3). Thereafter, when the respondents had issued a detachment order on 18th June, 2005 to his parent 142 Battalion, the petitioner had approached this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 3613/2005 where the movement order was stayed. However, the said detachment order was recalled by the respondent themselves and the writ petition was rendered infructuous. 4. According to the petitioner, he has been sincerely discharging his duty at sedentary posting at Family Welfare Centre of T. C. & S., Border Security Force, Meru, Hazaribagh without any complaint. However, by the impugned order, he has once again been transferred to the 142 Battalion at Assam, though he is suffering from 60% disability and was earlier permanently posted at Meru Centre. He also submits that the posting at 142 Battalion in Assam is not a sedentary posting, rather a field posting, as would appear from the Movement Order issued on 9th September, 2013, which is annexed as Annexure-12 to the supplementary affidavit. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned order of transfer is bad in law and it should be quashed by allowing to petitioner to stay at the sedentary posting at Meru, Hazaribagh under the respondent BSF. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has in fact remained for 13 long years at the Training Centre arid School, Meru, Hazaribagh pursuant to his posting on sedentary job after having attained disability during internal security operations in Kashmir Valley to the extent of 60%. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has in fact remained for 13 long years at the Training Centre arid School, Meru, Hazaribagh pursuant to his posting on sedentary job after having attained disability during internal security operations in Kashmir Valley to the extent of 60%. However the petitioner cannot claim as a light to continue at a particular place of posting permanently on the basis of Border Security Force (Tenure of Posting and Deputation) Rules, 2000. He submits that in similar circumstances where such a person who had suffered 75% injury was transferred to another Battalion from Meru Centre, he had approached this Court in W.P. (5) No. 1794/2005, Upendra Kumar v. Union of India & others. He submits that in the said case, this Court had categorically held that under the relevant rules (supra), there is no legal right for such a personnel even suffering from disability to be permanently posted at a particular place. He can be posted in a sedentary job in peace time place and may not be compelled to move to a field posting involving regular and serious movement. In such circumstances, once the movement order has also been issued, there is no reason why the petitioner should be allowed to stay at Meru Centre, Hazaribagh where he has remained for almost 13 years. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the impugned order. As is apparent from the submissions of the parties and pleadings on record that the petitioner's primary ground to assail the impugned order of transfer to 142 Battalion at Assam is based upon his contention that he is entitled to permanent posting at Family Welfare Centre of T.C. & S., BSF, Meru, Hazaribagh where he has been posted on 3rd February, 2000, keeping into account his disability incurred during injury sustained in internal security operations in Kashmir. It is however not in dispute that under the relevant rules which provides for tenure of posting and transfer of incumbents like the petitioner under the respondent BSF, this Court had occasion to consider and hold in the case of Upendra Kumar (supra) that no legal right has been made out on the basis of Rules of 2000 for such a personnel to seek a direction upon the respondents to put him at a particular place of posting permanently. This Court, in the circumstances, also observed that such a personel suffering from disability, shall not be posted in extreme hard area involving regular and serious movement in a field posting. However, he can be posted on sedentary job or duty in normal area or static formation. In such circumstances, this Court refused to interfere in the order of transfer of such personnel vide judgment dated 17th December, 2012. 7. In the present case, the petitioner apparently had sustained 60% physical disability during service and due to which, he has been posted at Training Centre and School, Meru, Hazaribagh and had remained there for almost 13 years. He obviously in the garb of rules of 2000 cannot legally claim a right to permanent posting at a particular place only. Respondents are obliged to put him in a place in normal area or static formation, instead of posting him in a extreme hard area involving serious and regular movement. 8. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the present writ application. The place where the petitioner has been transferred is the parent Battalion of the petitioner i.e. 142 Battalion at Assam. However, respondents should ensure that the petitioner is given a soft posting at the base unit instead of any field movement involving serious and regular movement. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. I.A. also stands dismissed. Petition and I.A. dismissed.