ORDER
1. Heard the Counsels on either side. Both the Counsel agreed to dispose of the main W. P.
2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that at present, the petitioner is working as Junior Management Grade Scale-I at Vizag Branch of the respondent from June, 1995. The petitioner got promotion on 28-4-1979 to the present post of Junior Management Grade Scale-I and was posted to M.G. Road Secunderabad Branch. Thereafter, he was transferred to Nalgonda and Hyderabad and in June, 1995, later transferred to Vizag branch of the respondent-Bank. While working there, the petitioner has been transferred by the impugned proceedings in Ref. Sup. 177/256, dated 21-4-1997 intimating him about his transfer to Berhampur Region and advising him to report to duty at Berhampur Regional Office where the said office will issue the exact posting of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner is having aged mother, wife and children who are residing in Hyderabad and his son in studying at Hyderabad. It is understood by him that he has been transferred to Berhampur on the ground of overstay at Vizag and the Berhampur Office is in different region and his transfer is also against the transfer policy for officers of the Indian Overseas Bank issued by the Personal Administrative Department, Central Office, Madras.
4. This is resisted by the respondent-Bank and in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the transfer policy adopted by the Bank strikes a balance among the four objectives i.e., (a) to develop officers through exposure, (b) to meet operational needs of the Bank; (c) to ensure safely of operations and (d) to improve general efficiency. The petitioner is holding a transferable post and his transfer is in exercise of administrative discretion of the authorities taking into consideration the administrative exigencies; as such, there is no violation of any rule of law. The question of promotion of the petitioner is not the subject-matter of the writ petition. The Bank denies the existence of any circular which shows that the petitioner should not be transferred either outside the region or the State.
5. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent has not specifically controverted the other particulars mentioned in the affidavit
of the petitioner.
6. It is further submitted that the High Court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution to interdict an order of transfer on the basis of the violation of Ihe guidelines since they do not confer any right on him.
7. When the writ petition came up for hearing, this Court has passed the interim suspension of the impugned transfer proceedings on 11-6-1997 in W.RM.P.No.13583/1997 and the petitioner was permitted to be continued at Vizag until further orders; as such, the petitioner is still working at the Vizag Branch of the respondent-Bank.
8. While the matter is being heard, the Counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the original records, on which the transfer of the petitioner was affected under the impugned proceedings. He has produced before me copies of the impugned letter issued from the Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office in F.N0.177/SUP/256, dated 21-4-1997 addressing the Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam along with the list of transfers of 459 officers, and the petitioner is one among the list.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the guidelines issued by the respondent-Bank for transfer policy of officers, lays stress on para 4 with regard to transfer of officers in JMG Scale-I. The said para 4 is to the following effect :
“Transfers of Officers in JMG Scale-I
1. Officers in Scale-I may be retained at one Branch/Department in Administrative Office/s for a period of about 3 years.
2. Officers who have been given 3 postings at one station, consecutively
shall be transferred to another station in the same zone. The officers, however, shall have no claim for minimum 3 postings at one station and they can be transferred out of station after one posting or even without completing the full term of posting on promotion or even otherwise due to exigencies of service.
3. No request for transfer back to the original place of posting will be entertained before completion of three years term at the new place of posting except under exceptional circumstances and solely at the discretion of the Bank.
4. Officers on promotion to Scale-II shall stand transferred to another region within the same Zone or even outside the Zone in case of surplus age in one
Zone and deficit in another Zone.”
10. A copy of the guidelines of transfer-policy for officers of the Bank has been furnished in the material papers at pages 3 to 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the guidelines, the petitioner has to be retained for a period of about 3 years in one statioa It is not disputed before me by the Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is the Scale-I officer of the Bank.
11. On a perusal of para 4 reflects that there is no blanket restriction for transfer of any employee/officer before completion of the period of 3 years at one station/Branch due to exigencies of service; but, on a question put by the Court to the learned Counsel for the respondent whether the guidelines are being followed by the Bank as per the transfer policy for officers given in the material papers and separately by a xerox copy, he merely stated that there are no signatures over the Circular copies of transfer policy for officers. He did not positively express that the circular/ policy is being followed or not though a copy of which was already served on the respondent. Be that as it may, though the allegations of the petitioner in certain paras of the affidavit have not been specifically
controverted by the respondent with regard to inconsistent transfer and mala fides – on a reading of the allegations in para 4, 5 and 6, do not reflect mala fides or victimisation for nowhere in the impugned order, it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred due to overstay. The learned Counsel for the respondent has clearly stated that the destination, to which the petitioner is transferred, it not outside the region or the Zone. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has expressed his inability to deny it.
12. From the record produced before me by the learned Counsel for the respondent, it is clear that the respondent has transferred 459 persons and the petitioner is one among them and it is a general policy of transfer on administrative grounds. Apart from this, a Division Bench of this Court in A. Bharathi, v. Smt. A. Rama Rani and another, 1997 (1) ALD 432, held thus,–
“Employees holding transferable posts are liable to be transferred at the discretion of the employer. If an employee is aggrieved by the transfer, his only right is to make a representation to the authorities. The wide administrative power of transfer cannot be curtailed by the Courts in exercising its judicial review jurisdiction, To strike down an administrative act purporting to protect, something less than a legal right, would be truncating the powers of the authorities.”
13. Though a feeble attempt has been made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the transfer, he had submitted his representation to the respondent-Bank; but the authorities have not intimated its result. Had the 1st respondent considered the representation of the petitioner favourably by this time, the authorities would have intimated the same. As the transfer on administrative ground, is the incident of service, I am not inclined to interfere with, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if India
14. The writ petition lacks merits and it
is accordingly dismissed.
15. As it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner is being continued at Vizag by virtue of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.MP. No.13583/97 dated 11-6-1997, the W.P.M.P.13583/97 is dismissed and W.V.M.P.3392/1997 is allowed.