IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 17121 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN P.C., (RURAL MARKETTING AND RECOVERY OFFICER), STATE BANK OF INDIA, AMRUTHAPURI BRANCH, VALLIKKAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KLAPPANA P.O., KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION), STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, NEAR IRON BRIDGE, KOLLAM, PIN-691 001. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE KERALA CIRCLE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AMRUTHAPURI BRANCH, VALLIKKAVU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KLAPPANA P.O., KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.17121/2011-M: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES TRANSFER POLICY. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS TRANSFERRED PUBLISHED IN THE WEB SITE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD. 31/05/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DTD. 24/06/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE NOTE NO. HR CM 6:SPL:612 DTD. 20/07/2010 AND APPOINTED AS RURAL MARKETING AND RECOVERY OFFICERS (RMRO). EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE E-CIRCULAR NO.RABG/RB-AC-AC/8/2010-11 DTD. 04/10/2010. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE RELATIVE NOTE APPROVED BY THE CIRCLE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON 24/03/2011 APPROVING THE POSTING OF 50% OF THE RURAL MARKETING RECOVERY OFFICER AS FIELD OFFICERS. EXT.R1.D: COPY OF THE TRANSFER POLICY FRAMED BY THE BANK FOR RMRO. EXT.R1.(E) (I) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11/07/2011. EXT.R1.(E) (II): COPY OF THE ENCLOSURE RECEIVED FROM THE ASSOCIATION. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.17121 of 2011-M. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Rural Marketing and Recovery Officer under the first respondent in Amruthapuri in Kollam District from 12.8.2010. This writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to quash Ext.P4 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue at Amruthapuri in Kollam district till completion of five years in terms of Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, para.8.4 in Ext.P1 deals with the transfer policy and it provides the normal tenure of a general employee in a station as three years and para.8.7 thereunder provides the normal tenure of stay at a station as five years in the case of Specialist Officers. It is contended that exemption to the said norms should get the approval of the Central Management Committee in each case. As per Ext.P2 order, the petitioner was ordered to be transferred from Amruthapuri in Kollam WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 2 district to Koottar in Idukki district. It is contended that no prior approval of the Central Management Committee was obtained in effecting such a transfer and in view of the norms in Ext.P1 and therefore it is liable to be interfered with and the petitioner is entitled to continue in Amruthapuri, Kollam district itself till completion of the normal tenure in terms of Ext.P1. The petitioner has raised certain allegations regarding the interference and the influence exerted by one of the General Trade unions in the matter of his transfer. According to the petitioner, he and certain others belong to the category trade union of the specialised officers and he is not a member of the said General Trade union. In the said circumstances the general trade union influenced the management to wreck vengeance on the petitioner and managed to get him transferred, it is contended. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the respondents. It is stated thereunder that Ext.P2 is the list of officers for transfer and WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 3 posting as per the general transfer and posting orders issued on 19.4.2011 and in pursuance of the same the petitioner was relieved from Amruthapuri as per Ext.P4 relieving order. The respondents refuted the claim and contentions of the petitioner with respect to his entitlement to continue in the present station for a period of five years relying on para.8.7 of Ext.P1. It is stated therein that the petitioner and the similarly situated employees are, governed by the conditions of service under the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. In terms of Rule 7 of the rules, an officer in State Bank of India is liable to be transferred or posted on deputation anywhere in India. The petitioner had joined at Kottarakkara Branch (Kollam District) as Officer-Marketing & Recovery-Rural (OMR) on 7.4.2008 on contract basis. Absorption of such appointees on contract basis into regular establishment was effected from 2.8.2010 as obvious from Ext.R1(a). It was thereafter that the petitioner was posted at Amruthapuri Branch at Kollam. The petitioner has already completed more than WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 4 three years in the district. Relying on Ext.R1(a), more particularly to para.xiii, it is contended that the petitioner is liable to be redeployed as per the requirement of the Bank. To substantiate the contentions the respondents are placing reliance on Exts.R1(a) and R1(b). In terms of Ext.R1(b), in the event of acute staff shortage the circle authorities could post some of the Rural Marketing and Recovery Officers (in short 'RMROs') as Field Officers in advances intensive Rural/Semi Urban branches. Ext.R1(c) would reveal that for effecting such approval the Circle Management Committee had already granted its approval. The total number of Rural Marketing and Recovery Officers is 112. As per the impugned order only 53 of such 112 RMROs were transferred and posted to different branches taking into account the shortage of officers. Therefore, it is contended that the order of transfer and posting has been effected as per Ext.P2 only on account of administrative exigencies. In view of the aforesaid position it is contended that since the order of transfer of persons including the WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 5 petitioner were effected only on account of administrative exigencies, it is not liable to be interfered with. The petitioner cannot, in the said circumstances, contend that he is entitled to continue in the present station for a period of five years. 3. In para.14 of the counter-affidavit the contention raised by the petitioner in para.6 of the writ petition has been refuted. The contention that he has been meted out a differential and discriminatory treatment only on account of his failure to associate with the State Bank of India Officers' Association (Kerala Circle) that was described as General Trade union is also refuted by the respondents. In a bid to reveal the hollowness of the said contention Exts.R1(e) and (e)(ii) are brought to my notice to show and contend that, in fact, the petitioner is a member of the State Bank of India Officer's Association (Kerala Circle). In the light of the same it is contended that the contention of the petitioner that the said association has influenced the management to wreak vengeance on the petitioner on account of his failure to WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 6 associate with the said association is absolutely bereft of any basis. As already noticed herein before, the petitioner assails the order of transfer mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is assailed on the ground that going by para.8.7 in Ext.P1 he is entitled to continue in the present station for a period of five years. In view of the specific contention of the respondents relying on Exts.R1(a) to R1(c), I cannot uphold the contention of the petitioner that he can continue in the said station as a matter of right. As per Ext.R1(c) the Circle Management Committee (CMC) of the Bank had given approval for the posting of 50% of the Rural Marketing and Recovery Officers as Field Officer at advance intensive Rural/Semi Urban branches which are not linked to RACPC/SMECCC. The right of an employer to distribute its manpower has to be recognised. That right of an employer/management can be interfered with only if the action is tainted with malafides or on such other sustainable grounds. In this case it is evident that it is only on account of administrative exigencies occasioned on account of shortage of officers WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 7 that a decision as revealed from Ext.R1(b) and Ext.R1(c) was taken. When that be the position, the transfer which was ordered as per Ext.P2 on account of administrative exigencies calls for no interference. The second reason assigned for assailing Ext.P2 order of transfer is the general trade union of officers of the Bank in Kerala Circle has influenced the management for transferring the petitioner on account of his failure to associate with it also cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that Ext.R1(e)(i) and Ext.R1(e)(ii) would reveal his membership with the very same association ie., the State Bank of India Officers' Association. The petitioner has not produced any document to refute the said specific contention of the respondents. It is pertinent to note that even in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner he has not chosen to refute the same. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to bring out a case warranting interference with Ext.P2 order of transfer. Taking into account the fact that the order in Ext.P2 has been issued on administrative WP(C).No.17121/2011-M. 8 exigency I am not inclined to interfere with the same. This writ petition is, therefore, liable to fail. Accordingly it is dismissed. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/-