-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 7131 of 2009 Prashant P. Ingole.. ..Petitioner. Versus Deputy General Manager, Dena Bank & Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Smita P. Kadu for the Petitioner. Mr. S. K. Talsania a/w Mr. Mahesh Londhe i/b M/s. Sanjay Udesh & Co., for the respondents. Coram : S. B. Mhase & R. M. Savant, JJ. Date : September 9, 2009. P. C. : 1. Heard. The Petitioner was appointed as a senior manager with the Respondent – Bank. After completion of his probation period in Pune region, he was transferred to Silvassa as a Senior Manager. It appears that after his transfer to Silvassa, the Petitioner made several representations to the Respondents that he should be transferred to Pune / Maharashtra. 2. It further appears that before being appointed in the Respondent – Bank the petitioner was working with Akola Urban Bank as the Chief Officer equivalent to the rank of Assistant General Manager. The representations made by the Petitioner were accepted -: 2 :- by the Respondents and pursuant thereto he has been transferred to Pune region and from Pune region to Jalana. The Bank has specifically stated that this transfer is in view of the request made by the Petitioner. 3. Further, in respect of the equivalence the Bank has stated that the Jalna Branch of the Respondent - Bank is one of the bigger branches (Scale-III) and has a lot of scope of increasing its corporate clientele and taking into consideration the expertise of the Petitioner which would be ideal at the said Branch the Bank has posted him there. 4. We find that as a result of the transfer the Petitioner has been appointed as Branch Manager, i.e., the same post as he was holding at Silvassa. As a result of the transfer, pay and salary of the Petitioner is not affected. The Petitioner cannot claim that his postings shall be as per his convenience. The contention of the Petitioner that a Specialist Officer like him has to be kept in the same office for a minimum period of 5 years is not backed by any rule or regulation of the Respondents. The Respondents have stated in their affidavit-in- reply that the said practice though ordinarily followed is always subject to the administrative exigencies. Admittedly, the Petitioner is -: 3 :- holding a transferable post. In respect of the present posting the request made by the Petitioner was accepted and he has been posted as per his request only. We therefore do not find any merit in the above Petition which is accordingly rejected. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)