JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner challenges Annexures-2 & 7 dated 19.02.2015 & 30.05.2016 respectively. Petitioner, who is working as a Commissioner of Central Excise, stood transferred from Dehradun to Kolkata by order dated 19.02.2016. He filed a writ petition and, on the basis of the direction, his representation stands rejected by the order dated 30.05.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner challenges both the orders. 2. We heard Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jay Vardhan Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent nos. 1 to 3. 3. In the order rejecting the representation, we notice that reliance is placed on Paragraph 2.5 of the Transfer Policy, which reads as follows: “7. Whereas, the officer has been transferred in terms of Para 2.5 of Transfer Policy, which provides as under:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer Policy, Government may, if necessary in public interest or in an administrative exigency, transfer or post any officer to any station or post.” 4. We further notice the contention in Paragraph 6: “6. Whereas, while transferring Shri Atul Kumar Rastogi, Commissioner from Dehradun to Kolkata, his history of postings was considered. During his entire service, the officer has remained posted in North Zone for 12 years 5 months (including exempted postings) and for 8 years 10 months in Central Zone. He has never served in East Zone. Moreover, there is shortage of officers in the grade of Commissioner in Kolkata Zone.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on the Transfer Policy and contended that there is violation of the terms of the Transfer Policy insofar as his son is studying in Class X and is receiving his schooling at Dehradun, and in Clause 9.5 of the Transfer Policy, in such cases, on request being made, officers must be retained at that place so as to facilitate the education of the children. Petitioner was, in fact, transferred and posted at Dehradun on 6th January, 2015. It is true that there is no reference as such to the said aspect in the latter impugned order, but the fact remains that there is reference to his having served for a fairly long period in North Zone and the rest of his inning has been in the Central Zone and there is definite reference to shortage of officers in the grade of Commissioner in Kolkata range. 6. 6. We would think that no useful purpose would be served in again directing reconsideration of the matter with reference to Clause 9.5 in view of the fact that there is reliance placed on the residuary powers contained in Paragraph 2.5, and it cannot be said to be without any basis as there is indeed reference to shortage of officers in the grade of Commissioner in Kolkata Range. We would think that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the facts of this case. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.