Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is working in Indian Air Force Station at Avadi. He is in the post of Sergeant and by order dated 3.1.2013, he was transferred to Bhuj Air Force Station in Gujarat State. Challenging the said order, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 2. In the Writ Petition, two grounds were urged. The first ground was that the petitioner was not given sufficient time as done in the other case and it was done violative of statutory Rules. Secondly, he was permitted to do Master in Social Work from Bharathiar University and the final examination is scheduled and it is on this ground, the Writ Petition came to be filed. 3. It must be noted that in respect of the service matters in relation to the persons who were subject to Army Act, Navy Act and Air Force Act, the matter was to be heard by an Armed Forces Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The jurisdiction, power and authority to deal with service matters in terms of Section 14 of the Act, are exclusively vested upon the Tribunal constituted for the said purpose. The term 'Service matter' is defined under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. Insofar as the transfer and posting including change of place or unit whether individually or in part of the unit, the Tribunal is precluded from going into the same, as it has been excluded from the definition of the term 'service matter'. Therefore, when the Parliament constituted the said Tribunal to deal with the members of the Armed Forces, it was given power to deal with service matters except transfer and posting, which undertakes the fact that with relation to member of Armed Forces, the question of transfer and posting cannot be the subject matter of the judicial remedy by the Tribunal. When Parliament gives limited power to the Tribunal in terms of service matter, which excludes the Tribunal from dealing with transfer and posting, it does not automatically follow that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution can review what was excluded from the term 'service matter' under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. 4. When Parliament gives limited power to the Tribunal in terms of service matter, which excludes the Tribunal from dealing with transfer and posting, it does not automatically follow that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution can review what was excluded from the term 'service matter' under Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. 4. Even otherwise in relation to the members of the Armed Forces covered by the three Acts set out above, the power of the court to judicial review regarding transfer came to be considered by the Supreme Court in Major General J.K. Bansal vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 227 ,and it has been held 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." 5. In the light of the above, there being very limited judicial review on such matters, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer on the grounds set out. There is no case made out. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.