1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14346/2010 Gauri Shanker Saini and others Versus Appointing Authority, Chief General Manager, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and others DATE OF ORDER --- December 03,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Amrit Prasad Sharma, for the petitioner BY THE COURT (1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. (2) By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the transfer order dated 18.10.2010 (Anx.2) passed by the respondent No.2 – Dy. General Manager (Human Resources), State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Head Office, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, whereby the petitioners have been transferred as Single Window Operator (SWO) at different branches. The details of the transfer of the petitioners are as under: Sr.No. PF No. Name of petitioner Design ation Present place of posting New place of posting 16 13603 Gauri Shanker Saini SWO Ind.Rehabilitation Collectorate, Jaipur 4 13097 Mahendra Kumar Sharma SWO Vigilance Collectorate, Jaipur 12 13312 Rajesh Kumar Dhakar SWO Premises SMS Highway, Jaipur. (3) Submission of counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned transfer order is illegal, erroneous and arbitrary apart from the fact that the same has been passed in a discriminatory manner without there being any administrative exigency. (4) I have gone through record of the writ petition and further considered the submission of counsel for the petitioner. 2 (5) It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Tushar D.Bhatt V. State of Gujarat and another (2009) 11 SCC 678 wherein it has been held that transfer is an incident of service and in the matter of transfer made due to exigency of service, the Court would not interfere particularly when the transfer was not a mala fide exercise of power. Paras 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment are relevant and the same are as under: “16. The legal position has been crystalised in a number of judgments that tranfer is an incidence of service and transfers are made according to administrative exigencies. 17. In the instant case, in the entire tenure of more than 18 years, the appellant was only transferred twice. The appellant's transfer order cannot be termed as mala fide. The appellant was not justified in defying the tranfer order and to level allegations against his superiors and remaining unauthorizedly absent from official duties from 11.10.1999 to 27.4.2000 i.e. more than six months. In the interest of discipline of any institution or organization such an approach and attitude of the employees cannot be countenanced.” (6) In Union of India and others V. Murlidhara Menon and another (2009) 9 SCC 304, the Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to be posted at a particular place and in law, he cannot exercise his option to be posted in his home State unless there exists any statute or statutory rule governing the field. (7) Since the petitioners' transfer is only from one Branch to another at Jaipur, the present case is not of hardship. Moreover, counsel for the petitioners has neither pointed out violation of any rule nor that the transfer order has been passed by an incompetent authority. There is no force in the writ petition. (8) The writ petition is dismissed. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल