ORDER [ENTITY], J.
1. Common questions of law and that of facts do arise for consideration in this batch of writ petitions. Therefore all these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners in these eight writ petitions are all employees of the respondent-Syndicate Bank serving in the clerical cadres in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners in all tine writ petitions except the petitioner in [CASE NUMBER] are female employees. In these writ petitions the transfer orders issued by the Management of the respondent bank in the month of June, 1995 transferring the petitioners outside the zone/districts are called in question. Before the impugned transfer orders were issued the petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] were working in the branches of the bank situated in Ranga Reddy district. The petitioners in [CASE NUMBER] were working in the branches of the bank situate at Visakhapatnam and by the impugned orders they have been transferred to Ongole in Prakasam district. The petitioners in the remaining writ petitions were working in different branches and offices situate in the twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad. It is averred that all female employees are aged more than 42 years and all the petitioners have put in more than 17 to 18 years of service in the present places of work.
3. The impugned transfer orders are assailed on several grounds. The petitioners contend that the impugned transfer orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper and mala fide and they are made in violation of the guidelines contained in the policies of transfers evolved by the bank management in the years 1982,1986 and 1991. They also maintain that the impugned transfer orders are not issued in public interest and in the interest of administration of the bank. They also maintain that as per the transfer policy contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991 the female members of the staff are not liable for transfer and they are exempted from the policy. They also contend that the petitioners are not liable to be transferred outside the district/city zone, as the case may be. They also find fault with the action of the management in not transferring the Special Assistants working in the district zone/city zone out side their respective zones while transferring the petitioners outside the city zone/district zone and according to them this tantamounts to invidious discrimination violating [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Further, it is contended by the petitioners working in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad that in order to stay back in the twin cities, on an earlier occasion they relinquished the possible promotion available to them in the cadre of officers and therefore at this distance of time when most of them have working spouses in the twin cities and when the post in which some of their spouses are working in the twin cities are not transferable, the impugned action intranferring them outside the city zone is totally arbitrary and unfair. They also plead discrimination practised by the bank-Management in the matter of creating a liability on the city born employees to go out of the city on transfer to the 'deficit pockets' while in not imposing the corresponding liability of transfer on the employees working in the 'deficit pockets'. Added to this, the petitioners have also contended that by the time the impugned transfer orders were issued they had admitted their children to the schools and the colleges at the present places of their working and if the impugned transfer orders are required to be obeyed that will result in grave injustice, hardship and inconvenience both to the parents as well as to the children. For all these reasons/grounds the petitioners have sought for interference by this Court.
4. The Management of the respondent-bank on service of notice has filed detailed counters along with Miscellaneous Petitions for vacating the ex parte interim orders granted by this Court on 14-6-1995 and 16-6-1995. The Management has contended that the writ petitions are misconceived and not maintainable; transfer is an incidence of service; the petitioners are holding transferable posts and therefore it is the prerogative of the Management to decide who should work where. The Management has maintained that the impugned transfer orders are issued in the best public interest and in the interest of administration of the bank in consonance with the norms laid by it in consultation with the majority union in the best interest of industrial relationship. Therefore the Management has pointed out that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed in limine.
5. This Court while entertaining the writ petitions on 14-6-1995 made an interim order in all the writ petitions except in [CASE NUMBER] suspending the operation of the concerned transfer orders. In [CASE NUMBER] this Court while entertaining the writ petition on 16-6-1995 made an interim order directing to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day.
6. When the Miscellaneous petitions filed by the respondent-bank Management seeking vacation of the ex parte interim orders were listed before the Court for hearing and orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties the main writ petitions were heard finally on merits. On behalf of the petitioners Sri. [ENTITY] and Sri [ENTITY], the learned counsel made their submissions whereas on behalf of the respondent bank-Management Sri [ENTITY], the learned senior standing counsel for the bank argued the case. The learned counsel reiterated and elaborated the same contentions as taken by the parties in their respective pleadings. Although the Court was called upon to review the validity of the transfer orders and the law governing such a review is substantially crystalized by several authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court, considerable time of the Court was consumed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties in making their respective submissions.
7. The respondent Syndicate bank is a body corporate constituted under the provisions of the [ACT]. It has over 1550 branches all over the country and around 28,000 workmen-employees, popularly known as Award Staff. Syndicate bank Employees Union is a Trade Union registered under the provisions of the [ACT] and that Union has been recognised by the Management of the bank as a majority Union for the purpose of collective bargaining and the said Union has a membership of around 21,000 employees working in the bank. There is a zonal office of the bank at Hyderabad, having jurisdiction over 284 branches and 19 administrative offices in the entire linguistic State of Andhra Pradesh. It is admitted by all the parties that the matter of transfer policy has not been covered as a service condition in any bipartite settlement. It is also an admitted fact that there are no statutory regulations governing transfer policy. The only legal provision on the matter of transferability of workmen in the banking industry is the one contained in para 536 of Sastry Award which reads thus:
"We further direct that even in case of workmen not belonging to subordinate staff, as far as possible, there should be no transfer outside the State or language area in which an employee has been serving except of course, with his consent."
Since there were no statutory regulations or comprehensive guidelines in Sastry Award, the Management of the bank had to evolve transfer policies in exercise of its executive power in consultation with the collective bargaining agent of the workmen namely, the majority union i.e. Syndicate Bank Employees Union.
8. Initially there was an understanding with the majority union and in the memorandum of understanding reached in the year 1982 the Management agreed not to transfer employees beyond the distance of 25 K.Ms, from the present place of work. It is claimed that the said understanding and subsequent practice created complications to the Management. Therefore the bank Management again sought consultation with the Union in the year 1991 and after consultation, mediation and negotiation a policy of transfer was drawn up on 25-3-1991. The said transfer policy is the following:
"Minutes of the joint meeting held between the representatives of Syndicate Bank and Representatives of Syndicate Bank Employees' Union at Manipal on 22nd and 23rd March, 1991.
PRESENT For and on behalf of For and on behalf of Syndicate Bank . Syndicate Bank Employees' Union 1. [ENTITY] 1. Shri [ENTITY] General Manager Vice President 2. Shri [ENTITY] 2. Smt. [ENTITY] Dy. General Manager Vice President 3. [ENTITY] 3. [ENTITY] Dy. General Manager General Secretary 4. shri [ENTITY] 4. Shri [ENTITY] Personnel Manager Dy. General Secretary 5. [ENTITY] 5. Shri [ENTITY] Personnel Manager Secretary 6. Shri [ENTITY] Secretary 7. Shri [ENTITY] Secretary 8. Shri [ENTITY] seceratry 9. [ENTITY] Treasurer
In the Joint Meeting held between the Representatives of Management of Syndicate Bank Representatives of Syndicate Bank Employees' Union, the following issues were discussed in a cordial atmosphere and the following Understandings reached:
1) Transfer Policy: The Representatives of the Management and the Union discussed the issues of Transfers and agreed that the following norms would be followed in respect of (A) 'Redeployment Transfer' (B) 'General/Rotation Transfer'.
(A) Redeployment Transfer:
(i) While identifying workmen staff other than sub-staff for posting to deficit pockets, junior most in service would be transferred,
(ii) For the above purpose, place (Urban Agglomeration/ Municipal Corporation/Village Panchayat/Mandal Panchayat as the case may be) is taken as a Unit.
(iii) The following categories of staff, however, are exempted from such redeployment transfer:
(a) Lady staff
(b) Staff members who have crossed the age of 50 years.
(c) Those appointed on compassionate grounds.
(d) Physically handicapped employees with a minimum of 40% permanent partial disability of either the upper or lower limbs or 50% permanent partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together.
(e) Those who have come to the place on request transfer and have not completed 3 years in the place.
(iv) Staff members who have already worked in rural branch for a term of 5 years will not be transferred to another rural place/branch on redeployment,
(v) On redeployment, couple working in the Bank will be transferred to such places where both can be accommodated in a place or nearby places.
(vi) Induction of staff to the place from where redeployment has taken place would be by retransferring the staff who were displaced on redeployment. However, request for transfer on compassionate grounds/first request of lady staff on marriage grounds and transfer of spouses of officers to such places may be given preference.
(vii) Recruitees (including female) will not be posted to any surplus branch/office in future. However, appointment on compassionate grounds is exempted,
(viii) Emoluments of clerical staff transferred on redeployment will be protected.
(ix) Where redeployment is done in the middle of an academic year and the employees so redeployed cannot shift his family on account of his children's education, he will be paid a lumpsumof Rs. 75/- p.m. till the end of current academic year.
(x) Deployment made earlier in terms of the understanding dated 27-11-1989 will be reviewed in the light of the above,
(xi) The present shortfall of workman in Belgaum Zone will be met with by redeploying staff from other Zones of the State having surplus staff.
B) General /Rotation Transfer:
(i) Each workman is liable for transfer after completing 5 years in a branch Place.
(ii) Ordinarily such rotational/general transfer will be outside the place but within a radius of 25 Kms. if there are branches/offices within that radius. If there are no branches /offices within the radius of 25 Kms the transfer will be to any of the branches/offices within the District.
(iii) The above policy will be reviewed after 3 months."
9. At this stage itself it is relevant to note that the aforementioned tranfer policy was framed at the Central level/Head Office level of the bank. The Management was represented by its General Manager, Deputy General Managers and Personnel Managers whereas the workmen were represented by Vice-President, General Secretary, Deputy General Secretary, Secretaries and Treasurer of the majority union, namely, Syndicate Bank Employees Union. It is also relevant to note that these policies, norms are applicable to all the employees working throughout the country. This document dated 25-3-1991 clearly goes to show that it is the outcome of the collective bargaining between the Management and the workmen. This document contemplates two kinds of transfers namely, (i) Redeployment transfer and (ii) General/ rotation transfer. Asregads Redeployment transfer is concerned certain categories of employees are exempted from redeployment transfer. Similarly certain categories of workmen are exempted from the norms of General/rotation transfer. The policy of transfer vide Circular [CASE NUMBER]BC/PD/18/IRD dt. 25-3-1991 was followed by another understanding with the majority Union in the year 1994. In respect of Redeployment transfers in Karnataka State and it resulted in the Management issuing Circular No. 80/94/BC/PD/18/IRD dt. 4-4-1994. Under the said document it was agreed that even female employees could be transferred like male employees as regards Deployment Transfers in Karnataka State. Then came [CASE NUMBER] dt. 29-9-1994 and Clause 17 of the said circular reads thus:
"17. General /Rotational Transfers: After discussions, it was agreed that the matter may be decided at Zonal level with reference to the position prevailing in each State."
This clearly indicates that the Management and the Union agreed that the question of framing fresh norms or modifying the existing norms as regards General/Rotational transfers are concerned be decided at Zonal level with reference to the postion prevailing in each State. It is in the form of a delegation of power by the Central Managment to Zonal Management to frame fresh norms or modify the existing norms in so far as General/Rotational transfers are concerned and there is no delegation of power to the Zonal level office to frame or modify the norms of tranfer in respect of redeployment transfer. Then came the framing of fresh norms at the zonal level in the year 1995 in consultation with the Office bearers of the majority union at the level of Zonal Office at Hyderabad as contained in [SECTION]/3033/ZOH/IRS dt. 23-5-1995. The norms contained in this circular were evolved /framed after having a discussion/negotiation between the Management represented by its Deputy General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Deputy Divisional Manager, Manager (IR), Manager (PER) and two officers on the one side and the Union represented by General Secretary, Secretary of the Union at the Central level and Chairman, State Secretary, State Assistant Secretaries and a C.E.C. member of the Union at the State on the other side. The norms for transfers contained in the aforementioned circular dated 23-9-1995 read thus:
" NORMS FOR TRANSFERS The representatives of the management indicated that it is desirable to give relief to the employees working in Rural /Hardship branches (as per annexure) for a long period. But the existing understanding that the transfers will be restricted to within a radius of 25 KMs is coming in the way.
With a view to find constructive solution in the matter, the same was discussed between the representatives of the Bank as well as the representatives of the Employees Union in detail. Thereafter, it has been agreed by and between the parties to sign afresh Memorandum of Understanding as under:-
(A) ROTATIONAL TRANSFER OF WORKMEN IN THE DISTRICTS OF NELLORE/ONGOLE/CUDDAPAH/ANANTHAPUR/ WARANGAL/NIZAMABAD/MEDAK/RANGAREDDY/ NALGONDA/KARIMNAGAR/[ENTITY].
1. All the workmen Staff are liable for a transfer after completing five years in a branch/place.
2. Ordinarily such Transfers will be outside the place but within the district.
3. Workmen Employees working in Urban Areas will be transferred to Rural Branch but within the district if he has not worked in a rural branch for a period of five years, in his earlier service.
4. However, Workmen Employees who have already worked in a rural branch for a period of five years and 'presently working in an Urban Centre will be transferred to a Semi-Urban Centre but within the district.
5. Employees posted to hardship centres identified by the Bank will work for a period of two years.
6. No mutual transfer request will be considered even within the district.
EXEMPTIONS:
The following category of employees are exempted:
(a) Lady Employees;
(b) Physically Handicapped Employees, who are drawing conveyance allowance.
(c) Protected Workmen classified under [ACT].
(d) Employees who crossed the age of 55 years as on 30th April of every year.
(B) ROTATIONAL TRANSFER OF WORKMEN IN BRANCHES OF TWIN CITIES, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA DIVISION (EXCEPT BRANCHES IN NALGONDA DISTRICT)
1) Workmen Employees working in deficit pockets, who were transferred under [ACT], will be retransferred to their parent district.
2) While identifying workmen employees, .senior-most employees with reference to the date of their entry into the district where there, is surplus staff would be identified for posting to the branches/ o places in the districts, where there is deficit, within the Zone.
3) Employees so transferred on rotation have to work in the transferee branch/office for a period of 3 years of active service. They will be transferred back to the parent district on completion of 3 years of active service. The term "ACTIVE SERVICE" shall include leave availed by the concerned workmen to the extent of leave actually earned during the period of work at the said place. Any leave availed beyond the said limit and unauthorised absence, if any, shall not be reckoned as "ACTIVE SERVICE".
4) After completion of their active service of 3 years in the deployed centres, the vacancies arising out of their transfer will be filled-up by transferring the employees in the above manner.
5) Emoluments of employees transferred on rotation will be protected. Special Allowance being drawn, if any, will be,proteced for those employees who are transferred on rotation during their term of Special Allowance, at the transferee place, for the remaining period of such entrustment.
6) The Special Allowance, if any, at the transferee branch, will attract HRA at the rate applicable to the area from which the employee is transferred on rotation.
7) Staff Members, who have already worked in a rural branch for a term of 5 years, will be posted to a Semi-Urban Place/Branch.
8) On rotation, couple working in the Bank will be transferred to such places where both can be accommodated in a place or nearby places.
9) New Recruitees/Promotees including female employees, will not be posted to any surplus branch/office hereafter, except the appointments made on compassionate grounds.
10) Induction of employees to the district from where rotation has taken place would be by retransferring the staff who were displaced on rotation. However, first request of lady employees on marriage grounds will be considered on priority, provided such request is made within five years of her marriage.
11) Excess stenographers in Vijayawada town will be transferred to the vacancies identified in branches/offices outside the division. For this purpose, senior most stenographers with reference to their date of entry into Vijayawada town will be identified.
12) Transfer requests from the deficit pockets to the surplus pockets will be considered giving due weightage to the service rendered by the employees in hardship/rural/semi-urban/urban and metropolitan places. The weightage shall be reckoned as follows:
(a) For every completed one year of service as on 30th April of every year in hardship areas 2.5 points
(b) For every completed one year of service as on 30th April of every year in rural areas 2.0 points
(c) For every completed one year of service as on 30th April of every year in Semi-Urban Areas 1.5 points
(d) For every completed one year of service as on 30th April of every year in Urban / Metropolitan Areas 1.0 point Thereafter, the list will be drawn every year and having regard to the number of points earned by an employee, transfer requests will be considered from deficit pockets to the surplus pockets. If such requests are considered employees will be transferred from surplus to deficit pockets to the extent of transfer requests being considered. The request transfers will be considered in a phased manner to the rotational centres by rotating the existing staff, provided the employees who come on request/rotation to the surplus pockets/centres will complete three years as such places/ centres.
If an employee was transferred on request to the present place, his/her further request will not be considered unless he/she completes a minimum period of five years at the present place of posting.
13. No mutual transfer requests in rotational centres will be considered.
14. The following categories of employees, however, are exempted from such rotational transfers:-
(a) Employees, who have crossed the age of 50 years as on 30th April of every year;
(b) Designated Sportsmen who are actively participating in International, National and State level events at present and also such employees recruited under sportsmen quota, who are actively participating in the tournaments, representing the Bank's Team.
(c) Office Bearers of the Union who are treated as protected workmen under [SECTION] of the [ACT]
(d) Physically Handicapped Employees, who are drawing conveyance allowance for the physically handicapped as per the scheme in the Bank.
(e) Employees suffering from major ailments like Cancer, who have undergone bye-pass surgery or open heart surgery for cardiac ailments in the last one year.
Employees suffering from Kidney ailment/s involving dialysis. Employees who had met with a major accident resulting in a minimum of 40% permanent partial disability of either the upper or the lower limbs or 50% together or blindness.
It is agreed by both the parties to review the above norms as and when required. The above norms for transfer are in addition to the norms laid down in [CASE NUMBER]/BC dt. 10-03-86 and [CASE NUMBER]BC dt. 25-03-91 on general transfer of Workmen Employees.
SIGNED ON THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MAY, 1995 AT HYDERABAD FOR & ON BEHALF OF THE FOR & ON BEHALF OF THE MANAGEMENT UNION 1. Sd/- 1. Sd/- [ENTITY] 2. Sd/- 2. Sd/- [ENTITY] 3. Sd/- 3. Sd/- [ENTITY] 4. Sd/- 4. Sd/- [ENTITY] 5. Sd/- 5. Sd/- [ENTITY] 6. Sd/- 6. Sd/- [ENTITY] 7. Sd/- 7. Sd/- [ENTITY]"
10. This document speaks about only Rotational transfers and provides norms for two categories of Rotational transfers.Category (A) of Rotational transfer exempts lady employees from the operation of norms contained therein whereas Category (B) of Rotational Transfer does not exempt lady employees from the norms. At the end of the document it is agreed between the parties that the norms contained in the document are in addition to the norms laid down in the years 1986 and 1991.
11. Having regard to the policies/norms laid down by the Central Office of the bank in the year 1991, the first question to be considered is whether the policies/norms laid down by the Zonal Office at the State level vide [SECTION] dt. 23-5-95 are valid. If the policies/norms contained in [SECTION] dt. 23-5-95 are invalid it will automatically follow that the impugned proceedings which are admittedly issued in pursuance of the norms contained in the said circular are also invalid. Therefore let the Court proceeds to consider this question in the first instance.
12. Circular No. 88/91 dt. 25-3-91 issued by the Central Management of the Bank in consultation with the Union conceives and speaks about two categories of transfers, namely, Redeployment transfer and General/Rotation transfer whereas the [SECTION] dt. 23-5-1995 speaks only about rotational transfer, after classifying the same into two categories mentioned therein. It does not speak about Redeployment transfer at all. [SECTION] dt. 29-9-1994 drawn by the Central office of the bank enables any Zonal office to decide on norms relating to General/Rotational transfers only. When this is the position, in the counter filed by the Bank Management a confusion is created. In paras 8 and 9 of the counter the impugned transfer orders are described as Rotational transfers whereas in the same counter in para 12 at page 11 they described it as Deployment transfers. The bank also claims that the earlier Deployment transfers are re-named as Rotational transfers. By re-naming Re-Deployment Transfer as Rotational transfer the Zonal office cannot lay down norms virtually in respect of redeployment transfer contrary to norms laid down by the Central Office. The Zonal office cannot be permitted to do something indirectly which it cannot do directly. From these facts which are borne out from the records what emerges are the following:
(i) Vide Circular No. 88/91dt. 25-3-1991 the Central Administration of the Bank laid down norms in respect of two categories of transfers applicable to all the employees working throughout the country in the establishment of the bank. Even the so-called delegation vide [CASE NUMBER] dt. 29-9-1994 does not permit any Zonal Office to frame guidelines or norms governing redeployment transfers are concerned.
(ii) The Zonal Office at Hyderabad, a State level office of the bank cannot frame norms superseding the norms laid down by the Central Office in respect of Redeployment transfers are concerned.
(iii) Although [SECTION] dt. 23-5-1995 speaks only about two categories of Rotational Transfers, in the light of the norms contained therein in general and the stand taken by the Management in the counter in particular, it should be held that by [SECTION] dt. 23-5-1995 the Zonal Office at Hyderabad laid down the norms in respect of Redeployment transfers in supersession of norms earlier laid down by the Central Office vide Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991. This action of the Zonal Office at the State level, in my considered opinion, cannot be sustained as valid for more than one reason. The policies/norms evolved by the bank-Management in consultation with the Trade Union governing transfers in the year 1982 and 1991 are not the settlements arrived at between the parties under the provisions of [ACT]. But it cannot be forgotten that the norms were laid down by the Management after going through the process of collective bargaining with the majority Union. Therefore it should be held that the norms laid down by the Central office after consultation with the office bearers of the Central Union covering all the employees serving in the services of the bank should have a sanctity and weightage and a subordinate office in the echelon of administration of the bank cannot lay down norms contrary to the one laid down by the Central Administration of the bank. At this juncture it is also relevant to note that the norms contained in Circular No. 35 /95 dt. 23-5-95 were not evolved by the Zonal Office with participation of any of the officers of the bank at the central level. If this is permitted then it will not be in the best interests of the administration of the bank nor in the interests of best industrial relations in the bank. Therefore I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the norms contained in [SECTION] dated 23-5-95 issued by the Zonal office at Hyderabad cannot be sustained. However, Sri [ENTITY], the learned standing counsel for the Bank would submit that the norms contained in [SECTION] dt. 23-5-95 were framed in consultation with the Head office vide proceedings No. 589 /0089 /PD. IRD (W) /P AP-11 dated 24-3-1995. The learned counsel made available to the Court a copy of the confidential letter referred to above written by the Assistant General Manager. That letter is of no help to the bank. That confidential letter written by the Assistant General Manager does not indicate whether the subject was placed before the Board of Directors of the bank at the Central level and any decision was taken. In the absence of any material placed before the Court to show that the opinion expressed by the Assistant General Manager in the confidential letter reflects the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the bank at the Central level I am not prepared to accept the view contained in that letter as that of the Central Management. More over it should be noted that 1991 norms laid down by the Management at the central level in consultation with the office bearers of the Central union cannot be diluted or modified by subordinate officials in the administration. Therefore I reject the argument of the learned counsel for the bank in that regard. Therefore I hold that the transfer policy framed by the Zonal office at the State level vide its Circular No. 35 / 95 dated 23-5-1995 is invalid.
13. Now let the Court consider the alternative argument of Sri [ENTITY], the learned senior standing counsel for the bank that assuming that the transfer policy dated 23-5-1995 framed by the Zonal office is invalid for some reason and the impugned transfers are effected in violation of the norms or guidelines contained in the policy evolved by the Central office in the year 1991, nevertheless it is not permissible for the Court to interfere with the transfer orders and quash the same. The argument of Sri [ENTITY] is that even 1991 transfer policy evolved by the Central office is only a set of guidelines and any violation of those norms and guidelines contained in the policy is not a good ground for this Court to interfere with the transfer orders. In support of his submission the learned counsel has referred to number of decisions of the Apex Court and this Court and other High Courts.
14. It is true that the scope and parameters of judicial review of transfer orders are substantially crystalised by the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court and this Court and several other High Courts.
15. [PRECEDENT], . the Supreme Court while holding that transfer is an incidence of service, and an order of transfer not resulting in alteration of any conditions of service to the disadvantage of the employee, was not open to challenge, observed that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally.
16. In the case of [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court held thus:
" We have found above that the right of the Bank to distribute its workmen not belonging to the subordinate staff to the best advantage, even though this may involve transfers outside the State or the language area in which a particular workman had been serving, was left unimpaired by the Sastri Award, except that such transfers have to be avoided, if they can be avoided without sacrificing the interests of the Bank. The management of the Bank is in the best position to judge how to distribute its man power and whether a particular transfer can be avoided or not. It is not possible for industrial tribunals to have before them all the materials which are relevant for this purpose and even if these could be made available, the tribunals are by no means suited for making decisions in matters of this nature. That is why it would ordinarily be proper for industrial adjudication to accept as correct any submission by the management of the bank that an impugned transfer has been made only because it was found unavoidable. The one exception to this statement is where there is reason to believe that the management of the Bank resorted to the transfer mala fide, by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice or some other unterior motive, not connected with the business interests of the Bank."
17. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held:
"There is no doubt that the Banks are entitled to decide on a 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 Banks in discharge of their managerial functions."
18. In [PRECEDENT], the Supreme Court held thus:
"In our opinion, the Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or onthe ground of mala fide."
19. In [PRECEDENT] the Supreme Court observed that it cannot be gain-said transfer is a necessary concommittence of every service; but if such a transfer could be effected only on certain conditions, it is necessary to adhere to those conditions, (emphasis is supplied by the Court)
20. This Court in [PRECEDENT] and the Bombay High Court in [PRECEDENT] opined that if any violation of guidelines or norms results in arbitrariness, then the Courts can interfere with the transfer orders.
21. What emerges from the aforementioned decisions of the Apex Court and the High Courts is that transfer is an incidence of service and a managerial function. An employee has no right to be posted at a particular place, if the post held by him is a transferable post. So long as the transfer policy is reasonable, fair and is applicable equally to all it is not open to challenge. The Courts should not interfere with transfer orders which are made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless they are made in violation of any mandatory statutory rule or they are tainted by vice of mala fide or they are made without jurisdiction. Even where executive instructions are violated Courts ordinarily shall not interfere with the transfer orders. If a transfer of an employee results in any hardship to him, even then it is not a reason for the Courts to interfere and such employee has to approach higher ups in the administration seeking relief. However, the Courts can interfere where a transfer order is effected in violation of guidelines resulting in arbitrariness and unreasonableness. What is arbitrary and unreasonable is relative in terms and answer to this question should be found having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. It is true that legally speaking a transfer order does not violate any of the legal rights of an employee. But, at the same time, the Court cannot forget to note that some time a transfer order may result in great hardship, inconvenience both to the concerned employee and members of his family. Transfer in a given case can uproot the family of an employee and subject him and other members of his family to untold miseries and hardships. Be that as it may, the settled position in law is that an individual interest should yield to public interest. If public interest requires that an employee should be transferred from the present place to another place then whatever may be the grievance or hardship of such an employee, the public interest should be protected by upholding the validity of such transfer.
22. In the light of the enunciation of law governing the judicial review of transfers as laid down by the Apex Court and the High Courts the present factssituation of the case should be examined. The Court has already held that the norms evolved by the Zonal Office at Hyderabad contained in [SECTION] dt. 23-5-1995 is invalid and contrary to the norms laid down by the Management at the Central level in the year 1991. There is no dispute that the present impugned transfer orders are issued in terms of the norms laid down vide [SECTION] dated 23-5-1995. Therefore it should be held that the impugned transfers are in violation of the norms/guidelines contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991.
23. The next question is whether the violation of these norms has resulted in any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. To answer this question the factual background of these employees cannot be forgotten. Admittedly since their appointment all these petitioners have been working in their respective places. Even according to the Management they have put in more than 17 to 18 years of services. The norms laid down by the Central Management in the,year 1991 also exempted the lady employees from redeployment transfers. Even according to the Management the present impugned transfers are only redeployment transfers which are renamed as rotation transfers. Therefore the exemption provided in the 1991 policy in favour of lady employees gets attracted to the facts of the case. Since these lady employees have been working from inception of their service in the twin cities of Hyderbad-Secunderabad and Visakhapatnam and they were exempted from redeployment transfer under the 1991 Central policy, it was legitimate for them to expect that they would be continued to serve in the twin cities and on that basis to arrange affairs of their life and future. The petitioners lady employees have averred that their spouses are also employed in the twin cities and the posts held by some of them are not transferable. They have also averred that they have already admitted their children to the schools and colleges and if they are forced to go to another place and report for duty it will result in great hardship and inconvenience and they may not be able to secure admission to their children at the transferred places. Modern employers particularly the State and its instrumentalities and Statutory authorities, Public Corporation should resort to transfer of employees only in the public interest and for administrative convenience and while doing so they cannot be blind and totally indifferent to hardship that may cause to the transferred employees. The role of modern State and its instrumentalities visa-vis its people in general and its employees in particular has been changed from Laissez Faire to paternalism and paternalism to maternalism. In other words, the role of a model employer should be that of a mother in treating its employees. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that though schools and colleges reopen in the month of June the admissions to the schools and colleges are secured quite before that time. We are in the last week of July, 1995 and the admissions during the current academic year are over and the schools and colleges are reopened and are functioning. Added to this it should be noted that family life of an employee has definitely a bearing on the kind of service such employee renders to the public administration. The spouses of the petitioners are working in the twin cities of Hyderabad-Secunderabad and Visakhapatanm and for economic compulsions and reasons they may not choose to resign and join the petitioners at the transferred places. For the same reasons the transferred employees also may not choose to resign and may not choose to stay back with their spouses in the twin cities and Visakhapatnam. It is needless to state that the Courts including the Apex Court repeatedly held mat it is always proper to permit the spouses to live together if the interest of the public administration does not suffer. In [PRECEDENT], . the Supreme Court held that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different without any detriment to the administrative needs. The Supreme Court further observed that in such cases the departmental authorities should consider such aspect along with the exigencies of administration and enable the two spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without sacrificing the interest of the administration. However, it should be noted that it is not a vested right in any employee to claim that both the spouses should be posted at the same place even sacrificing the interest of public administration. In this connection the decision of the Apex Court in [PRECEDENT] may be noted. In that case the transfer of an employee during mid academic term was considered by the Court and the Court found that there was no urgency for such transfer and in that view of the matter it restrained the employer from giving effect to the impugned transfer till the end of the academic year. In these cases the Respondent-Management has failed to place any acceptable material to show that the impugned transfers are unavoidable having regard to the public interest or exigencies of the service and therefore hardship caused to the petitioners on account of transfers should be eschewed from consideration. Therefore, keeping in mind the background facts of these cases, I hold that the impugned transfer orders suffer from vice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness and they are made in violation of norms laid down by the Head Office of the Bank.
24. Before concluding, a point urged by Sri [ENTITY] the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in [CASE NUMBER] should be noted. The petitioner in this writ petition is a male employee. He is not entitled to the exemption and he cannot avoid redeployment transfer as per the guidelines contained in Circular No. 88/91 dated 25-3-1991 of the Head Office of the Bank. Therefore he is liable to be transferred even under 1991 policy. However, Sri [ENTITY], the learned counsel contended that 1995 policy speaks about only rotational transfer and therefore the impugned transfer should be considered to be rotation transfer only, and if it is so construed then the norms laid down by the Central administration in its policy of 1991 should apply. According to those norms rotational/general transfer 'will be outside the place but within a radius of 25 K.Ms. if there are branches/offices within that radius. Further it is provided that if there are no branches/offices within the radius of 25 K.Ms, the transfer will be to any of the banches/offices within the district. Therefore Sri [ENTITY] would contend that the impugned transfer order is in violation of those norms. This argument is not tenable for the reasons already mentioned supra. Although 1995 policy speaks about rotational transfer and the impugned transfer order is also passed in pursuance of that policy in the light of the norms contained in the said policy as well as the stand taken by the respondent-Management in its counter the impugned order is only a redeployment transfer and not general or rotational transfer. Therefore, I reject that argument of Sri [ENTITY]. However, I think it is just and proper on the other Count of hardship that may be caused to this petitioner to direct the respondent-bank not to give effect to the impugned transfer order till the end of the current academic year. In the result and for the foregoing reasons I make the following.
COMMON ORDER
(i) [CASE NUMBER] are allowed and the transfer orders impugned in these writ petitions are quashed by issuance of writ of certioari.
(ii) [CASE NUMBER] is allowed in part directing the respondents not to give effect to the impugned transfer order till the end of April, 1996.
(iii) In the facts and circumstances of the cases the parties are directed to bear their own costs.