JUDGMENT AND OEDER : 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned ASG appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 344 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 345 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 346 of 2016 as well as Shri S. Samarjeet, the learned CGSC appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2016 and W.P. (C) No. 381 of 2016. 2. By these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for issuing appropriate writ/order /direction quashing the orders dated 03-05-2016 impugned in W.P. (C) No. 381 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 344 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 345 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 346 of 2016; order dated 10-05-2016 impugned in W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2016 and order dated 06-01-2016 which is common in all the writ petitions in respect of the petitioners. All the writ petitions have arisen out of a similar set of facts and therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3.1 According to the petitioners, they joined the service as Constables (CT/GD), CRPF on various dates in between 2001 and 2005 and after having completed their basic training successfully, the petitioners were posted at various places and ultimately, the petitioners were transferred and posted at Group Centre, Langjing, Imphal, Manipur in the year 2012 which is considered to be a static peace area and the tenure of their transfer and posting at Group Centre, Langjing, was to complete in the year 2016 but before the actual tenure was completed, the petitioners were transferred from Group Centre, Langjing, Imphal to other places vide order dated 06-01-2016 issued by the DIG, Directorate General, CRPF. 3.2 Being aggrieved by the said transfer order dated 06-01-2016, the petitioners submitted their representations praying for cancelling their transfer order on medical/humanitarian grounds, and alternatively, praying for transfer to any other places within M & N Sector, which were not disposed by the respondents for some time. Accordingly, the petitioners approached this court by way of writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 56 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 88 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 54 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 55 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 89 of 2016 which were disposed of by this court directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by them within a month from that day. In a purported compliance of this court’s orders, the petitioner’s representations were disposed of on the ground that considering the security scenario in the country and the service conditions of such para-military forces and being transferable job, the representations did not have any merit and were accordingly rejected. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the respondents, the petitioners approached this court again by way of writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 175 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 176 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 228 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 177 of 2016, W.P. (C) No. 178 of 2016 which were disposed of on 11-03-2016 and 18-03-2016 with the direction that the respondents shall re-examine the matters as regards the issue of medical problems in the light of the fresh representations to be submitted by the petitioners within a month there from. The representations were duly submitted by the petitioners but the same were disposed of on the ground that the petitioners had been transferred from the Group Centre, Langjing, to other places as per Clause 4(iv)(b) of the Standing Order No. 07/2015 to fulfil the operational requirement and administrative demand in the public interest. Being aggrieved by the rejection of their representations, the instant writ petitions have been filed questioning the orders dated 03-05-2016, 10-05-2016 and 06-01-2016 that the representations have not been rejected in terms of the provisions of the Standing Order and that in respect of two persons namely, S. Touthang and M. Sonminthang Haokip who are similarly situated, their transfer orders were cancelled which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The instant writ petitions have been contested by the respondents tooth and nail contending inter-alia that the representations have been rejected having no merit in them considering the security scenario of the country, administrative constraints and operational commitments and that the transfer order in respect of the said two personnel had been cancelled on account of the fact that they were working in the Station Officers’ Mess which is a specialized job and much efforts have gone in training them for their assignment and in the interest of the organisation. 4. 4. The transfer and posting is the domain and prerogative of the Government and the courts shall not interfere with it except in cases where the transfer order has been issued in violation of the provisions of a rule or on the ground of malafide. In other words, the power of transfer and posting of the Government is a discretionary power but is always subject to the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions. The issue relating to transfer and posting has been considered time and again by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in various cases, settling the law thereof and the decision dated 23-08-2005 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 5189 of 2005 and relied upon by Shri S. Rupachandra, ASG is also one of such cases. In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi Vs. UP Jai Nigam, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter-alia held that the transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. In the case of Dayal Das Vs. State of Assam reported, in 2002 (2) GLT 109 the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has inter-alia held that the guidelines for transfer of officers in the Office Memorandum dated 19th Sep ’92 may not have statutory force, but are checks against arbitrary transfer and deviation from the said guidelines may result in an arbitrary transfer. Similarly, in the case of Prasanna Kumar Nath Vs. State of Assam, reported in 2005 (4) GLT 348, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has observed that guidelines are always guidelines and not like statutory rules. However, the State Government itself framing the guidelines are bound to act within the parameters of the said guidelines with the justified exception here and there. Admittedly, in the present cases, the transfer and posting of the non-gazetted (Executive/Technical/Tradesman) Force Personnel including Mahila Personnel in the CRPF is regulated by the Standing Order No. 07/2015. Clause 3 of the said Standing Order provides for the classification of CRPF stations into three namely, Hard field, Field and Static/Peace. Eligibility for transfer is provided in Clause 4 of the said Standing Order. Clause 3 of the said Standing Order provides for the classification of CRPF stations into three namely, Hard field, Field and Static/Peace. Eligibility for transfer is provided in Clause 4 of the said Standing Order. The relevant portion of the Standing order namely Clause 4(iv)(b) and Clause 4(xvi) are reproduced herein below: “(iv) The eligibility criteria for first static posting and subsequent static posting will be as under: (a) For Male RANK FIRST PEACE STATION/STATIC (including B/Trg.) SUBSEQUENT PEACE STATION/STATIC RANK FIRST PEACE STATION/STATIC (including B/Trg.) SUBSEQUENT PEACE STATION/STATIC Group B 06 years service 04 years subsequent field service as on 31 March of year under consideration. Group C Group C 08 years service (one tenure hard filed area) 08 years subsequent field service (one tenure hard field area) as on 31 March of year under consideration. (b) For Female - As per para 12 Example:- A new SO/St firstly will be posted to “Hard Field Area” as far as possible and after completion of tenure he will be posted to field area and after completion of 06/08 years (SO-06 yrs. & Ors.-08 yrs.) of field service he will be eligible for static/peace posting. He may be posted to peace/static place subject to availability of vacancies/admn/ops feasibilities. After completion of his tenure at peace/static, he has to complete 08 years filed service for Group C (04 years for Group B personnel), out of which one tenure should be in Hard Field Area, to become eligible for subsequent peace/static posting. (xvi) However, the eligibility conditions as laid down above may be relaxed by one year in very deserving cases by Sector IGP in the following circumstances: (a) Sudden death of spouse or child. (b) Transfer on medical grounds may be considered on merit in case one’s spouse or child suffering from any of the following disease: (i) Cancer (ii) Paralytic Stroke (iii) Renal failure (iv) Coronary artery disease, Thalassaemia (v) Parkinson’s disease. (vi) Motor-neuron disease. (vii) Infertility (viii) Any other critical/serious disease if recommended by the board of medical officers/Composite Hospitals.” 5. At any cost and in terms of the instructions/guidelines in the said Standing Order, the petitioners are required to be transferred from the present place of posting to other places after completion of their tenure. (vi) Motor-neuron disease. (vii) Infertility (viii) Any other critical/serious disease if recommended by the board of medical officers/Composite Hospitals.” 5. At any cost and in terms of the instructions/guidelines in the said Standing Order, the petitioners are required to be transferred from the present place of posting to other places after completion of their tenure. The said transfer order dated 06-01-2016 was issued by the DIG (Estt.) which appears to be a general or routine transfer involving about 2036 personnel of the CRPF and the reasons for issuing the transfer order dated 06-01-2016 are stated to be purely on operational point of view and on administrative grounds & public interest for administrative requirement and that too, as per Standing Order. It may be noted that an exception has been carved out in Clause 4(xvi) of the Standing Order whereby eligibility conditions in respect of transfer may be relaxed by one year in very deserving cases by Sector IGP in the circumstances mentioned therein. After the said transfer order dated 06-01-2016 having been issued, the petitioners submitted their representations, probably by invoking the said instructions contained in Clause 4(xvi) although it is not specifically mentioned therein, on medical/humanitarian grounds. As has been stated herein above, the power to be exercised by the competent authority in this regard is discretionary and none of the CRPF personnel, in normal course, can claim any benefit out of it as of right. But while rejecting the representations, the respondents have not stated anything about having considered the requests made by the petitioners which compelled the petitioners to approach this court again by way of writ petitions wherein this court directed the respondents to re-examine the matter in the light of the fresh representations to be submitted by the petitioners. In compliance with the court’s orders, the respondents appear to have considered the representations of the petitioners and rejected the same by issuing orders thereof wherein similar reasons for transfer, common for all, are reiterated except in one of the orders in respect of the petitioner in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2016 wherein it is stated inter-alia that the petitioner was given maximum opportunity for treatment of his wife at the present place of posting and therefore, the respondents were unable to relax the eligibility conditions for the petitioner from being transferred to his new places of posting. The short question that arise for consideration by this court is as to whether the respondents have considered the representations under Clause 4(xvi) of the Standing Order which is an exception to the general instructions contained therein and in other words, whether their cases do fall under any of the medical grounds mentioned therein so as to deserve relaxation by one year. Similar reasons assigned in respect of the petitioner in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2016 are not found in respect of the other petitioners and on perusal of the orders in respect of the other petitioners, it is seen that the respondents have stuck to the reasons for transfer which are available with them at the time of issuing the order dated 06-01-2016. One of the reasons which weighed with the respondents in rejecting the representations of the other petitioners appears to be that in the event of the representations being allowed, others might manage somehow to remain posted near their home town by hook or crook. It is no doubt true to some extent. But when there is a specific instruction in the Standing Order namely Clause 4(xvi) by way of an exception to the general instructions, the representations are required to be considered on their own merits independent of the reasons for transfer, common for all, available with the respondents prior to the issuance of the order dated 06-01-2016. In other words, the representations are required to be considered in the light of the Clause 4(xvi) also. Otherwise there is no point of issuing such instructions/guidelines regulating transfer, if the same need not be followed or implemented by the authority and moreover, the instructions at Clause 4(xvi) will be rendered redundant and meaningless, if the representations on medical grounds are to be considered on the basis of the general instructions only. Shri M. Devananda, the learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have not taken into account the health problems of the petitioners at the time of considering the representations. But his contention appears to have no substance for the reason that on perusal of the orders impugned herein, it is seen that it has been observed therein after referring to the health problems of the petitioners that the representations have no merit. But his contention appears to have no substance for the reason that on perusal of the orders impugned herein, it is seen that it has been observed therein after referring to the health problems of the petitioners that the representations have no merit. The only thing is that no specific reason except the general reasons for transfer, common for all, is given as regards the health problems of the petitioners, unlike the one that has been done in respect of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 380 of 2016. The decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramadhar Pandey Vs. State of UP, 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 35 and Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Damodar Prasad Pandey & ors, (2004) 12 SCC 299 and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not applicable to the peculiar facts of the present cases for the reason that the transfer order dated 06-01-2016 cannot be said to be issued not in public interest nor can it be questioned on the ground of malafide because no material has been placed on record to substantiate it. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has further submitted that although the petitioners are similarly situated with the said two CRPF personnel namely, S. Touthang and M. Sonminthang Haokip, they have not been treated equally and therefore, the actions of the respondents are arbitrary and malafide. According to him, the said two personnel have been allowed to be posted at Group Centre, Langjing continuously since the last more than seven years, without any representation being submitted by them, which is totally contrary to the Standing Order. This averment is not denied by the respondents and all that the respondents have submitted, is that the said two personnel are working in the Station Officer’s Mess which is a specialised job after efforts having been made in their training for their assignment and therefore, they are retained in the Group Centre, Langjing purely on administrative requirement and in public interest and in the interest of the organisation. But it is not disclosed as to what training they have undergone and what is that specialised job which cannot be done by others. But it is not disclosed as to what training they have undergone and what is that specialised job which cannot be done by others. No reasons have been assigned in the Selo Message dated 19-01-2016 and Signal dated 20-02-2016 for cancellation of their transfer orders and moreover, the provisions of law or rule or guidelines on the basis of which their transfer orders have been cancelled, are not disclosed therein. In addition to the said two personnel, there are other personnel whose transfer orders have been cancelled, as is evident from the said Message and Signal, without assigning any reason thereof but in respect of Shri G. Rongmei, it is mentioned therein that his transfer order has been cancelled on compassionate ground. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on their behalf, the respondents have made an attempt to justify the cancellation of the transfer order in respect of the said two personnel which is not permissible at all in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when the Government order does not contain any reason for the action being taken by it, the same cannot be explained and justified in the affidavit. Moreover, there is no instruction/guideline in the Standing Order by which the principles for transfer can be deviated by the respondents except on medical grounds as contained in Clause 4(xvi) of the Standing order. All CRPF personnel who are similarly situated, are to be treated equally and any deviation there from has to be based on cogent reasons. It has not been brought to the notice of this court any provision of law or rule, other than Standing Order No. 07/2015, by which the respondents can consider the cases of those personnel separately at the time of cancelling their transfer orders. If there is any other norm or rule regulating transfer, other than Standing Order No. 07 of 2015, the petitioner’s representations also which were submitted on 12-01-2016, could have been considered along with that of those personnel detailed and enumerated in the said Message and the Signal which the respondents failed to do. Different norms cannot be applied to CRPF personnel who are similarly situated. Different norms cannot be applied to CRPF personnel who are similarly situated. Be that as it may, the conditions that may be relaxed by the Sector IGP in deserving cases under Clause 4 (xvi) are for one year only and so far as the petitioners are concerned, there are hardly four months left to complete one year from the date of transfer order i.e., 06-01-2016 on account of this court’s orders. Therefore, this court is of the view that the end of justice will be met if the respondents consider the cases of the petitioners again sympathetically and allow them to remain in their present places of posting till December, 2016. 7. In view of the above, the instant writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall consider the cases of the petitioners and find out if they can be allowed to be retained in their present places of posting till the end of December, 2016 keeping in mind the observations made herein above and issue appropriate orders in respect thereof. This exercise shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order and till then, the petitioners shall be allowed to remain posted at their present places of posting.