The supreme Court ruling varies from case to case basis need to study entire case for proper ruling

Rules provide 

Where both the spouses are Government servants and if one of the spouses is transferred, then the other spouse may also be transferred to the same place or nearby place depending upon the availability of vacancy even if one of them has not completed the minimum period of stay;
(v) Where a female Government servant is a widow / spinster / unmarried divorcee, she may be transferred and in case she is appointed for the first time, may be posted to a place of her choice subject to availability of vacancy;

i) Where a Government servant or his / her spouse or children are suffering from serious or terminal ailments, depending upon the availability of the facility of medical treatment at
following cases after

the requested place subject to certification by
the Medical Board

A Division Bench of Karnataka  Court in Alla Saheb vs. The State of Karnataka [ILR 2017 KAR 86] by following two full bench decisions of this Court in Chandru H.N. vs State of Karnataka [ILR 2011 KAR 1585] and Gangadharaiah S.N. vs. The State of Karnataka [ILR 2015 KAR 1955] has held that the Government Order laying down the guidelines for transfer of Government servants is statutory in nature. The following observations made therein require to be noticed:
“15. The entire exercise undertaken by the two full benches of this Court would make it clear that the directives framed from time to time as guidelines regulating transfers by the State Government are not mere guidelines

leaving it to the discretion of the State Government either to follow them or not to follow them. It is not as if the said guidelines do not confer any right in favour of the concerned Government servants. The guidelines having been framed in exercise of the executive power of the State conferred under Article 162 of Constitution of India have been held to have statutory force. The two full benches did not stop there. They have further laid down that the said guidelines were enforceable. Enforceability of the guidelines would mean that whenever the guidelines were violated resulting in the rights of any of the Government servants getting affected then they can be enforced in accordance with law. Therefore, they vest the Government servants with necessary rights to make a grievance against violation of the said rules/guidelines framed. That they are, therefore, not directory so that the competent authority can ignore them and exercise its own discretion to either follow it or not. The full bench has kept in mind the purpose behind the constitution of the Administrative Reform Committee by which State Government intended to regulate the entire issue of transfer of Government servants and address the evil associated with frequent and in-discriminate transfer. Administrative Reform Committee had issued several recommendatory measures and in pursuance of such recommendatory measures, Government Order dated 07.06.2013 has been issued to regulate the transfers.
17. It has to be stated at this stage that the Government Order laying guidelines for transfer does not confer any absolute right in a Government servant to continue in a place for the prescribed period. It has provided several exceptions and has conferred discretion in the competent authorities to effect transfer even before the expiry of the specified period or to extend the period of stay even after the expiry of the specified period of stay in a particular place. The requirement of the rule in that regard is that reasons have to be recorded and prescribed procedure has to be followed including approval to be obtained from the Chief Minister. The purpose and intent of such provision in the rules is to ensure that arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power is not resorted to and the Government servants are not harassed by repeated transfers and displacements. The object was to regulate the discretion. Fact that convenience of continuing the Government servant in a particular place for a specified period will help in discharging his duties efficiently by having grip over the fact situation in the particular place have been also taken into consideration 

Court dose not interfere with transfer unless effected by malice and arbitrary ness.

Prerogative of govt., transfer as per need but not to punish emplyeee.

It is for employer to take a call regarding your posting 

your wishes would be considered but not necessary posted at your choice of posting 

This purely depends on the state transfer policies.

So check with the department policies for getting the desired posting.

Still you can file a specific performance suit against the department for getting the desired posting. 

You have not posted your problem, you are simply asking for a supreme court judgment without giving the proper subject also.

If you are a victim of the government transfer, then you have options to approach court to have legal remedy to get your grievances redressed.

Transfer  in the government by requests of employees is a discretionary power of the government and the employees cannot claim it as a right.

He can only get it on humanitarian ground

As the government has considered the request of the employee to post him to a nearby place to his home town, may be because there is no vacancy in his home town, any challenge against this decision before court also may not fetch any fruitful result to the employee, hence first the employee may go to the nearby place and then try for his hometown posting whenever a vacancy arises there.

Transfer  on choice is never the right of an employee nor can it be imposed as a measure of penalty. 

However transfer policy is mostly dependent on service regulations of the organisation. 

Medical ground is a good ground to seek transfer but it depends on discretion of the employer and not a matter of right, more so , when no vacancy is available. 

there is no such rule of supreme court to specify such limit of posting. however, this question is to be consider on the facts of each case. There should be reasonable cause that should accommodate or according to the guidelines of the Company. 

It is a discretionary power of the department to post on the suggested place or by their choice.  

That and there are several other factors that have to be taken into consideration.

Well it is a discretion of the department. You may go to the high court.

No worries about the situation. 

The State Government wherein an employee is not fit to travel long distance and has family in other districts may consider the requirement and request of the employee to Station the posting  of the employee under State Government Service Rules and regulations for the welfare of its employees. 

No government employee can claim his transfer or posting as a matter of right. It will be prerogative of the state government to post/transfer any employee anywhere in the state keeping in view the administrative convenience.

Dear Sir/Madam,

You are suggested to take the matter to the high court by way of writ petition and the department will be directed to look for your choices. 

1. You cannot get transfer merely on request because transfer is not a right of an employee it is discretion of department.

2. You need to give some genuine reasons for getting transfer near home town.