HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18882 of 2009 Dated: 07-04-2010 Between: P.S.V.Sanjeva Rao. … Petitioner And State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager (Administration), Region-II, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18882 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a Special Assistant in State Bank of India and is presently working at Kotabommali branch. In this writ petition, he seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not considering his request to post at Srikakulam branch. 2. Earlier also, when he was transferred by proceedings, dated 22.11.2008, he approached this Court. As a Special Assistant, he is being paid an allowance of Rs.2,500/-, and when it was submitted by the petitioner that he is ready to forego his Special Grade Allowance, this Court, by an order dated 24th of December 2008, disposed of the writ petition, without interfering with the order of transfer, keeping it open to the petitioner to file an application for transfer to other places, and further observed that it is open to the respondents to consider the same. 3. On 29th of September 2008, the petitioner was transferred to Kaviti branch. However, when he requested to Srikakulam, his request was not considered, but he was transferred to Kotabommali on 07.11.2008. While working at Kotabommali, he filed a representation dated 25th of August 2009, seeking transfer to Srikakulam. 4. In this writ petition, it is submitted by Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, that during most of his service, the petitioner is posted in rural areas. He pleaded discrimination, stating that the similarly placed persons were posted in urban areas also, but the case of the petitioner is not considered. 5. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. While denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated in the counter that the representation of the petitioner, dated 25th of August 2009 was received at their end on 5th September 2009. It is stated that the vacancy position of the said post has to be advised by the Assistant General Manager, Srikakulam branch, but as on date, the requirement is not identified. It is further stated that to give best customer service, respondents are contemplating to fill the vacancies at District Headquarter branches with tech-savvy persons but not with the persons like the petitioner, who is having a limited knowledge in computer operations. In the absence of identifying the vacancy position in Srikakulam branch, merely because a representation is filed on 25th of August 2009 by the petitioner, no direction can be given to transfer him to Srikakulam branch. There is no basis even for the plea of the petitioner that there is discrimination. Transfer is an incidence of service and it is always open to the respondents to post suitable persons at a particular branch, having regard to the manpower requirement. In that view of the matter, no positive direction can be given to transfer the petitioner to Srikakulam branch. But, as much as it is stated that the representation of the petitioner, dated 25th of August 2009, is pending with the respondents, and the vacancy position is yet to be identified, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that while considering the general transfers, the representation of the petitioner, dated 25th August 2009 shall also be considered for posting at Srikakulam branch or in any other nearby branch. It is made clear that the consideration of such request shall be in accordance with the transfer policy of the bank. 6. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 7th April 2010 Note: Furnich C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr