JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI assisted by Mr. S. Shangrit, learned counsel is present and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents, so no further notice is called for. 3. The present writ petition is a second round of litigation where by on the orders of this Court, the respondents had considered the representation filed by the writ petitioner with regard to his posting and transfer. 4. The earlier order dated 14.10.2022, had been passed in consideration of the submissions of the writ petitioner that he was not allowed to represent against the movement order. Para-7 of the order dated 14.10.2022 for convenience is reproduced hereinbelow :- '7. In this view of the matter, as the petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity to reply to the said communication, he is permitted to file a representation within 1(one) week from today, and the respondents are to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of 2(two) weeks, thereafter. Status quo as granted earlier with regard to the movement of the petitioner shall be maintained till disposal of the representation.' 5. Today, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation was duly filed as evident from the Annexure to the writ petition, and the reply thereof rejecting the same on 25.10.2022, is also annexed. 6. The reasons given therein for rejection was that the letter under reference, to which the writ petitioner pleaded ignorance was a Policy letter which is not addressed individually, and as per the Standard Policy, the letter was to be uploaded on the MES Website for information of all, and therefore the contention of the writ petitioner that he was not aware of the same could not be accepted. It is further noted in the order dated 25.10.2022, that the prayer for deferment could not be granted, as the representation was received after issuing of the postings, which if accepted would be in violation of Cadre Management of MES Civilian Officers, Guidelines, 2015. 7. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI has also made submissions with regard to grounds taken by the respondents for rejection of the representation. 8. 7. Dr. N. Mozika, learned DSGI has also made submissions with regard to grounds taken by the respondents for rejection of the representation. 8. Transfer matters are usually not interfered with by Courts as they are made in exigency of service and only when the same is mala fide or done so as a punitive measure in some cases, on extraneous circumstances, Courts may interfere. 9. In the instant case, it is noted that the writ petitioner seeks to resist the transfer, although he has already spent a considerable time in the present station. Notwithstanding the health condition of his wife, transfer being an exigency of service, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 10. Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has made an additional prayer for issuance of a fresh movement order to facilitate posting and transfer. 11. The prayer is allowed. 12. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands closed and is accordingly disposed of. 13. However, before parting with the records, it is made clear that the dismissal of the this writ petition will not bar the respondents from sympathetically considering the case of the petitioner on other grounds.