HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22886 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is functioning as Technical Officer (SSI) MMGS-III, in the state Bank of Hyderabad. The Management of the Bank transferred him from Head Office to Zonal Office in Hyderabad itself, through order dated 08-09-2010. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. Petitioner contends that his post is specific to the Head Office and nowhere in the Zonal Office, there is a post equivalent to that. He further contends that the transfer is motivated and was passed only with an object of shifting him from the Head Office. Reliance is placed on certain circulars relating categorization of posts. 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that though the post held by the petitioner is categorized to be one in Head Office, the nature of functions discharged by him are such that his service are needed at other places. Instance of petitioner himself being associated the Regional Office on earlier occasion, is cited. 4. Heard Sri K. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The transfer of the petitioner is from one street in Hyderabad to another and the distance involved is less than 3 kilometers. The grievance of the petitioner is more about the nature of functions to be discharged at the place to which he is transferred. 6. The respondents admit that the post held by the petitioner was categorized. However, it is urged that the type of categorization prevailing in the State Bank of India, is not adopted by them, and their freedom to transfer officers of that category is intact. 7. Assuming that the petitioner is discharging a particular type of functions, it cannot be denied that the administration has the flexibility to require the petitioner to discharge slightly different functions also. Petitioner can feel aggrieved, if only there is any variation in his emoluments or the transfer resulted in any inconvenience. None of these factors exist in the instant case. 8. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 19, 2010. KTL