ORDER
N.G. Nandi, J.
1. In both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the transfer order dated 2/3-7-1999, whereby the employees-officers of the Bank of Baroda have been visited with inter-zonal transfer and directing the respondents to implement properly and uniformly in true spirit the transfer policy Annexure-B.
2. The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners are employees, namely officers of respondent-bank, which was nationalised in the year 1969-70; that Bank of Baroda (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (herein- after referred to as “Regulation”) came to be framed; that Regulation 47 provides that “every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank to any place in India”; that the respondent-Bank framed a policy for transfer, taking into account various guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time, relating to job rotation, rural/semi-urban transfers etc. that the respondent-Bank initiated the exercise of effecting promotion from middle management Grade/Scale-II to middle management Grade/Scale-III; that the relevant extracts of Central Officer Circular No. CO:BR:86/187 dated 3.12.1994 provides that “on promo- tion, such officers shall be straightaway posted to a rural/Semi-urban branch and confirmation of their promotion to MMG/S-III will be subject to their completing the requisite rural/semi-urban service. Officers who are agreeable to the above conditions may apply in the prescribed application form which may be obtained from respective branch/office “: that the respondent-Bank violated the transfer policy and not uniformly adhered to the instructions/directions, as contained in various circulars, issued by the bank for effecting promotions; that inter-zonal transfers are to be effect- ed only on promotion. The officers who have foregone their promotions on the ground of constraints in mobility, are now being transferred out of Zone on the criteria of longest stay which is not at all contemplated in the Transfer Policy ; that the inter-zonal transfers on promotion are not uniformly followed in the whole of respondent-Bank and the officers-employ- ees posted in the State of Gujarat and in the Greater Bombay have been delinked from the General Transfer Plan; that to accommodate the favoured officers the greater Bombay has been declared as deficit zone and the officers posted in that zone are not posted out of zone after promotion; that Regulation 47 has to be controlled and guided by the Transfer Policy whereas the respondents are invoking Regulation 47 arbitrarily, without any rational and to harass and victimise the officers-employees.
3. It will be seen from the above that the impugned transfer is not challenged on the ground of mala fides or arbitrariness but the same is alleged to be in violation of the Transfer Policy by resort to Regulation 47 without on rational basis.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Chetan Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned transfer is an inter-zone transfer not on promo- tion; that the same is violative of the transfer policy; that the petition- ers did not appear in the test for promotion; that Regulation 47 is con- trolled by the transfer policy and the same does not give untrammelled right to the Bank and that Regulation 47 cannot be resorted to independent of the transfer policy but the same is controlled by the transfer policy.
It is submitted by Mr. Agarwala learned counsel for the respondent that the instances cited in the transfer policy for the transfer of the employees are not exhaustive; that Regulation 47 will apply irrespective of above for transfer of the employee/officer; that even those employees/officers who have not opted for promotion, can be transferred under Regulation 47 and that Regulation 47 would prevail; that employees/officers who are transferred under the policy would be the cases of transfer on promotion and other instances cited therein whereas in other cases i.e. inter-zonal transfer other than on promotion would fall under Regulation 47; that the petitioners could have claimed exemption from transfer; that the petitioners have completed three years at their present place of posting; that uniform policy is being adopted and about 900 officers are being visited with inter-zonal transfer and there is no question of arbitrariness or victimisation; that the guidelines/policies are not statutory in nature.
5. Annexure-A dated 3.7.1999 (in C.W. 3990/99) suggests that the concerned petitioners are transferred to West U.P. Zone-Meerut and that they have been relieved on the same day with the instructions to report to Deputy General Manager, West U.P. Zone-Meerut Annexure-A dated 2.7.1999 (in C.W. 3989/99) suggests that the concerned petitioner is transferred to Eastern U.P. Zone- Lucknow and that he has been relieved on the same day with the instructions to report to Deputy General Manager, Eastern U.P. Zone-Lucknow, Annexure-B is the transfer policy. Annexure-B is the transfer policy of the respondent-Bank. It provides for transfer normally on promo- tion under job rotation for providing rural/semi-urban branch experience as required under Regulation 17 of the regulations. In case of transfer on promotion, the officers, who have been posted/transferred out of zone in the past and who have completed three years of service on such transfer is given exemption so also to the officers in the age group of 55 years and above. It also provides that as regards the officers in Senior Management Grade/Scale-IV and above, the postings are decided by the Bank by taking into account the administrative needs and suitability and that in terms of Regulation 47 of the Bank of Baroda (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 every officer is liable for transfer to any officer or branch of the bank or to any place in India.
6. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioners, services are liable to be transferred since they are holding a transferable job all over India. The Petitioners cannot claim that their transfer is regulated by statutory provisions, which confer enforceable condition of service nor it is contended that their transfer is effected mala fide:
In the case of State of Kerala & Another Vs. P.K. Rajan and Others 1990 LAB. I.C. p. 438 the Division Bench of the ‘Kerala High Court held that “except in cases where the transfer itself is regulated by statutory provisions which confer enforceable conditions of service or in cases where the transfer is effected mala fide, there would be no scope for this court to interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the matter of transfer. The Government servants who are transferred, can not seek any writ or directions under Article 226 merely on the ground that a particular guide- line has not been scrupulously followed. Therefore, where there is no mala fide in the transfers of the Government Servants holding transferable posts the court would not interfere and substitute its own decision in the matter of effecting transfers. Merely because the guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference; that the guidelines are not statutory and are only meant for guidance of the transferring authority.”
In the case of The Management of The Syndicate Bank Ltd. Vs. The Workmen, it has been observed that “there is no doubt that the banks are entitled to decide on consideration of the necessities of banking business whether the transfer of an employee should be made to a particular branch. There is also no doubt that the management of the bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its employees between the different branches. We are, therefore, of opinion that Industrial Tribunals should be very careful before they interfere with the orders made by the Bank in discharge of their managerial functions.”
7. It will be seen from the affidavit-in-reply by the respondent that the officers are transferred from one branch to other or one zone to other or one region to other depending upon various factors viz. promotions, need of skilled officers at different zones of offices at a particular time, com- puterisation, opening of the new branches to make up deficit/surplus of officers at a particular branch, region or zone due to direct promotions, expansion of business in particular zone, need for skilled officers due to opening of foreign exchange, credit card business, priority sector etc.etc. : that under the present exercise the bank has transferred/re-transferred about 900 officers to essentially meet the above requirements i.e. to transfer the officers who have been transferred from their parent zone or zone of their choice to other zone. It the said officers are not re-trans- ferred the same would result in dis-satisfaction, frustration, demotivation which would affect the working of the bank; that 67 officers from Northern Zone are transferred to other Zones mainly Eastern U.P. and Western U.P. zones and officers from the said and other zones are re-transferred to the Northern Zone on the criterion fixed by the respondent-Bank; that the impugned transfer is in accordance with the transfer policy and Regulation 47 empowers the respondents-Bank in the administrative exigencies to effect transfers independently of the policy i.e. inter-zonal transfer otherwise than on promotion and the petitioners have been at their present posting for over 15 years without transfer and consequently for administrative reasons, under administrative decision taken by the respondents the petitioners are transferred from; one zone to the other which is in conformi- ty with the condition of service and fair play.
8. As far as Circular (Annexure-D) dated 26.11.1987 is concerned, it suggests that under the policy Annexure-B an officer on promotion is normally transferred from one place to another depending upon the administra- tive exigencies. Consequently the attention of the officer concerned has been drawn towards the fact so that the officer concerned on promotion does not come forward at a later date with the plea of difficulties as regards mobility. It may be appreciated that the transfer policy (Annexure-B) at the bottom provides for transfer under Regulation 47. In other words Regulation 47 is independent of transfer policy and the respondent would be entitled to resort to Regulation 47 in a given case irrespective of the transfer policy. Thus, Annexure-D or the transfer policy (Annexure-B) does not have any over-riding effect over Regulation 47, thereby protecting the powers of the respondent to effect transfers under Regulation 47. Now when the transfers are effected resorting to powers under Regulation 47 the same would also imply retransfer of officers who are outside their parent zone for over three years as stipulated in the policy. Now, if the transfer is not undertaken then the officers who are already on transfer from their parent zone would suffer frustration, demotivation which may reflect on the performance of the individual officer and in turn on the over all perform- ance of the banking institution. Regulation 47 being general, the petition- ers or the officers, who have not participated in the promotion can not contend that simply because they have not participated in the promotion process they cannot be transferred under Regulation 47. There is nothing to suggest on record that those officers who do not participated in/opt for promotion, they can not be transferred under Regulation 47. It is pertinent to note that even the transfer policy (Annexure-B) itself suggests that the said policy would be applicable to the cases of promotion and the same can have no relevance on transfer under Regulation 47. It may also be noted at the same time that the policy (Annexure-B) does not appear to create any absolute bar or absolute exemption to the officers from inter- zonal transfer even if they have already completed three years of service on transfer on promotion.
9. Circular dated 28.6.1999 to Zonal Heads of North Zone, Western U.P. Zone and Eastern U.P. Zone, concerned Regional Offices and all the branches of erstwhile Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. (EBCBL) suggests that Bareilly Corporation Bank Ltd. has been amalgamated with the Respondent-Bank in terms of Notification dated 1.6.1999 of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance , Banking Division and the Government has specified 3rd June, 1999 as the prescribed date for the amalgamation of EBCBL with the Bank of Baroda as per Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Central Government under provisions of sub-section (7) of Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The above circular also suggests that the deductions regarding the payment of salary etc, for June 1999 have to be effected by the concerned branches for the employees of EBCBL at the rates advised. This would also suggest justification on the part of the respondent-Bank in effecting transfer resorting to Regulation 47.
One of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that Direct Recruit Officers (DROs) are treated distinctly inasmuch as they are not transferred out of zone and only the petitioners are visited with the impugned transfer order. In other words, discrimination/arbitrariness since according to the petitioners, the DROs could have been trained at the branches outside parent Zones.
10. The DROs, as far as their first posting is concerned, are a class by themselves in my opinion, from distinct class altogether and for proper functioning of its branch the bank also needs experienced hands. Howsoever good a direct recruit may be, he certainly has no previous experience of the working in the bank.
In the case of United Bank of India Vs. Meenakshi Sundaram and Others the Supreme Court held that “the policy framed in view of special circumstances prevailing in North-Eastern Region and its purpose was to post experienced officer in that region. Differential treatment was therefore permissible. ”
It may be appreciated that before fresh recruit is sent out and required to work in a new atmosphere, it is desirable not only for the employee concerned but also in the functioning and in the administrative interest of the bank not to expose a new entry at a center/place unknown to him/her. The employee should be groomed first in the parent zone so that he can acclimatize with the working of the institution, gain some experience and built up confidence in himself and the institution also in turn may feel confident that the employee transferred out of zone would justify the confidence reposed in him/her. The petitioners cannot be heard to contend that not they but the DROs should be transferred.
11. The above discussion would reveal that under Regulation 47 every officer is liable for transfer to any office/branch of the bank at any place in India over and above the transfer policy (Annexure -B) and the respondent’s action of transferring these petitioners vide impugned trans- fer orders Annexure-A in both the petitions, can not be regarded as arbi- trary, unauthorised or in any manner violative of the transfer policy (Annexure-B) and the petitioners holding transferable job working at the present place of posting would be liable to be transferred out of zone.
12. In the result, the petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.