ORDER : The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question a Movement order dated 08.02.2021 transferring and directing movement of the petitioner from Yelahanka, Bengaluru to Odisha. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of present petition as borne out from the pleadings are that, the petitioner joined the services of Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BSF’ for short) as a Constable in the year 1984 and at the relevant point in Replaced time was working as an Inspector in BSF. It is pleaded by the petitioner that during his service spanning for about 36 years from 1984 till the passage of the impugned order, has served in various parts of the country. The posting and services rendered by the petitioner throughout his service are as follows: “1984 The petitioner joined the BSF as a Constable. 1985-1987 Petitioner was posted to work at Delhi. 1987-1989 Petitioner was posted to work at Tripura. 1989-1991 Petitioner was posted to work at West Bengal. 1991-1993 Petitioner was posted to work at Jammu and Kashmir 1993-1996 Petitioner was posted to work at Gujarat. 1996-1997 Petitioner was posted to work at Haryana 1997-1999 Petitioner was posted to work at Tripura 1999-2003 Petitioner was posted to work at Jammu and Kashmir 2003-2006 Petitioner was posted to work at Punjab 2006-2007 Petitioner was posted to work at Tripura 2007-2011 Petitioner was posted to work at Shillong 2012-2015 Petitioner was posted to work at Bangalore 2016-2017 Petitioner was posted to work at Anti naxal operations, West Bengal 2018 onwards Yelahanka, Bangalore 3. The petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in the month of April 2020. In the year 2018, two years prior to his date of retirement the petitioner was posted to Yelahanka, Bengaluru. This posting according to the petitioner was ostensibly on the ground that he was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation in two years time. 4. When the petitioner was functioning at Bengaluru the age of retirement of all the personnel including that of the petitioner was enhanced from 57 to 60 years. It is then the time of retirement of the petitioner got changed from April 2020 to April 2023. 4. When the petitioner was functioning at Bengaluru the age of retirement of all the personnel including that of the petitioner was enhanced from 57 to 60 years. It is then the time of retirement of the petitioner got changed from April 2020 to April 2023. It is when the petitioner was serving at Bangalore the impugned Movement order is issued posting the petitioner from Bengaluru to the office of BBSR (BSF), Odisha which is the Technical Headquarters of the BSF at Odisha. It is this Movement order that is called in question in the writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. Sunil Kumar H., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner throughout his career of 36 years has worked in several places; he is aged about 58 years; he is in the fag end of his career; he is entitled to protection under a Rule which prohibit terminal transfers, and would submit the writ petition be allowed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel, Sri. S. Rajashekar representing the respondents would contend that it is a Movement order and not a transfer order per se; the petitioner being an officer of the disciplined force cannot contend that he should be posted to a particular place more so, in the light of the facts and circumstances in the case, he would seek dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 9. Transfer an incidence of service, is by now a too well settled principle of law. But such transfers of any personnel in the Government is generally regulated by Rules/Government orders/operative guidelines by way of policy as obtaining from time to time. Therefore, such incidence of service is hedged by the conditions stipulated in either the Rules/Government Orders/policy. The transfer of the BSF personnel is regulated by the Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and deputation) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short). These Rules are framed under sub Section (2) of Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It cannot, therefore, be in doubt that the Rules are statutes. The transfer of the BSF personnel is regulated by the Border Security Force (Tenure of posting and deputation) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short). These Rules are framed under sub Section (2) of Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. It cannot, therefore, be in doubt that the Rules are statutes. The Rule that is germane for consideration of the issue in the lis is Rule 10, which reads as follows: “10. Terminal Posting – Members of the force having good record of service and free from disciplinary/vigilance angle, may be given posting near their home town, two years before attaining the age of superannuation subject to availability of vacancy of the post in such place and suitability for the job as assessed by the competent authority.” The afore-extracted Rule deals with terminal posting. Members of the force having good service record, free from pendency of vigilance or disciplinary action would be given posting near their home town, two years before attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, personnel who are to retire in the next two years are insulated from transfer. 10. Such insulation is a well recognized principle in all Rules or policy regulating transfers of personnel in every wing of the Government. It forms a part of every Rule as, when an employee is at the last lap of his service, he is inundated with manifold responsibilities, numerous concerns and anxieties, with regard to remainder of his service, his post retirement life and settlement of all his terminal benefits. In order to ensure a smooth transition at the fag end and would have sufficient time to tie up the loose ends of his complete tenure of service, such beneficial rule finds place in the Rules regulating transfer. It is the afore-quoted Rule that regulates an identical circumstance in the case at hand. 11. It is now germane to notice the law in regard to interference by the Constitutional Courts qua transfer of personnel. The Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299 , has held as follows: “4. 11. It is now germane to notice the law in regard to interference by the Constitutional Courts qua transfer of personnel. The Apex Court in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Damodar Prasad Pandey reported in (2004) 12 SCC 299 , has held as follows: “4. Transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be clearly arbitrary or visited by mala fide or infraction of any prescribed norms of principles governing the transfer (see Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa [1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 175 : (1996) 32 ATC 107]. Unless the order of transfer is visited by mala fide or is made in violation of operative guidelines, the court cannot interfere with it (see Union of India v. S.L. Abbas [ (1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 230 : (1993) 25 ATC 844 : AIR 1993 SC 2444 ]). Who should be transferred and posted where is a matter for the administrative authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any operative guidelines or rules the courts should not ordinarily interfere with it. In Union of India v. Janardhan Debanath [ (2004) 4 SCC 245 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 631] it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 250, para 9) “No government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place or place of his choice since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to another is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the courts or the tribunals normally cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they were the appellate authorities substituting their own decision for that of the employer/management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. This position was highlighted by this Court in National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan [ (2001) 8 SCC 574 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 21] .” Later, the Apex Court again reiterating the parameters of judicial interference in the matters of transfer considering all the earlier judgments on the issue in the case of Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (2009) 15 SCC 178 , has held as follows: “9. The courts are always reluctant in interfering with the transfer of an employee unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of some statutory provisions or suffers from mala fides. 10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 98 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1304 : (1994) 28 ATC 246] this Court reiterated that: (SCC p. 103, para 6) “6. … the scope of judicial review in matters of transfer of a government servant to an equivalent post without any adverse consequence on the service or career prospects is very limited being confined only to the grounds of mala fides and violation of any specific provision….” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the law down by the Apex Court, judicial interference in an incidence of service i.e., transfer can be only on malafides, incompetence or violation of any Rule/policy/operative guidelines. The case at hand, will have to be considered on the touchstone of the Rules supra and the judgments of the Apex Court as afore-quoted interpreting judicial interference in the matters of transfer. 12. Petitioner is now aged 58 years and is due to retire in the month of April 2023. The posting now made from Yelahanka, Bengaluru to Odisha clearly falls foul of the afore-quoted Rule. The language deployed in the said Rules is that it benefits members of the force having good record of service and free from disciplinary and vigilance angle. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not have a good record of service or any case be it vigilance or disciplinary is pending against him. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not served in various parts of the nation during his span of 36 years of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had suffered injuries on his leg and is presently unable to walk properly. It is not even the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not served in various parts of the nation during his span of 36 years of service. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had suffered injuries on his leg and is presently unable to walk properly. All these factors were brought to the notice of the Competent Authority in the representation given for a reconsideration of the impugned Movement order to which the respondents have turned a blind eye. There is no extraordinary circumstance warranting transfer of the petitioner from Bengaluru to Odisha at the fag end of his career or his indispensability to be posted at Odisha is demonstrated by the respondents. Therefore, the order of transfer impugned is rendered unsustainable for it being contrary to the Rules (supra). 13. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it is only a Movement order and not a transfer order is also unacceptable. The said Movement order is quoted hereunder for the purpose of quick reference: “//MOVEMENT ORDER// No.841026016 Inspr (GD) P. S. Venkatesh of this HQ will proceed to Ftr Tac HQ (Spl Ops) BSF Odisha (BBSR) for temp duty. 2. Date & time of departure : 08/02/2021(FN/AN) 3. Authority for move : IG (Spl Ops) BSF Odisha 4. Purpose of move : As mentioned above 5. He will maintain strict discipline enroute and will not discuss any security matters with any un-authorised person. 6. On arrival at destination, he will report to DIG (PSO), Ftr THQ (Spl Ops) BSF Odisha for further orders. 7. In case of any difficulty enroute, he will report to nearest Police Station/ BSF Bns/ CRPF/RPF/GRP/Army camp etc for assistance by producing this movement order, as authority.” A bare perusal at the impugned Movement order is clear that he is directed to maintain strict discipline enroute and on arrival at his destination i.e., Odisha he will report to the officers mentioned therein at Odisha. This can be nothing but an order of transfer titled a Movement order notwithstanding it depicting that it is temporary. In general parlance, there cannot be a Movement order without transferring a Government servant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a transfer order is at best a figment of his imagination. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. In general parlance, there cannot be a Movement order without transferring a Government servant. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that it is not a transfer order is at best a figment of his imagination. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 08.02.2021 stands quashed. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the obliteration of the impugned order.