JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation challenging the order of transfer dated 28.07.2017 [Annexure-2 to the writ petition] issued by the respondent No.2 transferring the petitioner from 71 Bn., CRPF, Khumlung, West Tripura to 24 Bn CRPF, Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner has also challenged the release order dated 17.08.2017 and the letter No.J.II-1/2017-71 EC.II dated 08.10.2017 issued by the respondent No.3. rejecting his representation dated 29.09.2017. 3. By the previous writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1071 of 2017, the petitioner had challenged the said order of transfer dated 28.07.2017 on the ground that he has a right to have preference of his posting for his being posted in the NE region and also on the ground of family emergencies. Having considered all these aspects of the matter this court had occasion to observe as under: “6. It appears from the said record that the petitioner served in Agartala and nearby Agartala from April 2005 till date and he has completed the tenure. The competent authority has rejected the representation communicating in crux that there is no substance in the representation warranting any reconsideration. However, the respondent No.2 has directed the Commander to withdraw the relieving order till the case is disposed of by the court. While going through the representation filed by the petitioner it appeared before this court that further consideration in respect of difficulty is called for. 7. In view of this, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction: (i) Within 7(seven) days from today, the petitioner shall file a fresh representation with all documents to the Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Tripura Sector, the respondent No.2 through the appropriate channel narrating his difficulties elaborately and (ii) the respondent No.2 shall give a fresh look into the difficulties of the petitioner and with human touch he would consider the said representation in respect of extending his posting where he is presently posted or any other place nearby or for providing some space to the petitioner so that the petitioner can attend the medical emergencies in the family.” 4. In terms of the said direction as laid in the judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 delivered in W.P.(C) No.1071 of 2017, the previous writ petition, the respondents by the order dated 08.10.2017 under No.J.II-1/2017-71 EC.II [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] rejected the representation by observing as follows: “Competent authority has given a fresh look into the representation submitted by you against order of transfer to 24 Bn and found that there is no convincing reasons put forth by you for interference with present posting to 24 Bn. Hence, your representation is rejected being devoid of merit by the competent authority.” Now the petitioner has again challenged the said transfer order and the consequential order passed by the competent authority in terms of the direction of this court. 5. As a measure of abundant caution, when Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised that the order is not reasoned and it does not reflect the basis for rejection of the representation filed by the petitioner, this court had directed Mr. A. Roy, Barman, learned CGC appearing for the respondents for producing the file relating to disposal of representation. In accordance therewith, Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC has produced the file. Having perused the file, this court finds that serious attention was rendered by the competent authority to the aspects as projected by the petitioner and thereafter having given adequate reasons in the file, the said representation was rejected. The rejection communicated by the said letter dated 08.10.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition], but reasons were not laid. 6. Today Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that if the transfer order is not stayed the petitioner’s family will be ruined and that apart, the policy as adopted by the respondents will be given a burial. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has referred to the para 9 of the said policy dated 02.12.2016, where it has been provided that the personnel of NE & Valley should be given a choice to remain there even after completing 06 years & 08 years, if they are so willing. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel that provision curves out a right for the petitioner to prefer to continue his posting in the NE region. 7. According to Mr. Datta, learned counsel that provision curves out a right for the petitioner to prefer to continue his posting in the NE region. 7. Apparently, the said submission is very attractive, but having due regard to the authority of the employer to transfer irrespective of the guidelines, this court does find, when the authority after due care and diligence has decided to deploy the petitioner in some other Battalion, it would be inappropriate for this court to interfere with such deployment inasmuch as the deployment falls exclusively within the domain of the employer. The difficulties that the petitioner has projected in his representation cannot create a right in his favour, based on which this court interfere with the transfer order. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed. The interim order as passed on 03.11.2017 stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. The records as produced by Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC is returned.