CW 4573/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4573/08 N.S. Toshniwal Versus Punjab National Bank & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10/07/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sunil Samdaria, for petitioner Mr. Ashok Mehta, for respondents *** Matter has come up on application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dated 21st May, 2008, but with the consent of parties, the matter is finally decided at this stage. Petitioner is working in Officers' cadre as Deputy Manager remained posted in Jaipur since 1992 and has been transferred vide order Ann.2 dated 22nd April, 2008 from Jaipur to Sriganganagar. Counsel for petitioner submits that order impugned was not passed by the competent authority since approval of Zonal Manager, which is required under the Rules of the Bank, has not been obtained before passing of order impugned. Counsel further submits that as per Policy of the Bank for Officers which has been circulated on 16th April, 2007 wherein there is a clause that such Officers who have three years service remained to their credit should not be disturbed from the place of posting and since the present petitioner is going to retire in October, 2010 which is the period of less than 3 years on the CW 4573/08 [2] date when impugned order has been passed by the respondents. The Bank has violated their Policy itself. In addition to it, counsel further submits that his wife is under treatment for last more than 5 yrs. certain record has been placed on record to show that on account of her illness, it has not been possible for him to join at the place of posting and despite representation made, the same has not been considered by the respondents. Reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been averred that so far as competence is concerned, transfer was given effect to after being approved by the Zonal Manager evident from document Ann.R/1 dated 21st April, 2008 and after seeking its due approval, it was carried out by the authority subordinate thereto. Counsel further submits that under the Policy, of which reference has been made by counsel for petitioner, there is a further clause appended that Officer shall remain posted for not more than 7 years at one station, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner is working in the Officers' cadre and stationed at Jaipur for almost 16 yrs. by now. As such, under conjoint reading of the clause related to Transfer Policy in question, the authority in exigency of service has transferred the petitioner to another region under order impugned. Counsel further submits that before passing the order of transfer, options were called for from officers including petitioner, but he has not given option for any other place of posting other than Jaipur. As such, the authority after taking note of other options and so also petitioner's placement at one station, took decision to transfer him to another CW 4573/08 [3] region at Sriganganagar and in the absence of any violation of statutory provision or Rule, if there is any, ordinarily transfer which is an incident of service is not to be interfered with by this court under the scope of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution. Counsel further submits that administrative exigency arose for passing of order of transfer was for the reason that there is change in administrative set up by Zonal Office circulated on 21st April, 2008 where deployment of officers from Jaipur City has undertaken 3 tier set up in the Bank, which was made to be a basis for passing of order impugned in the instant matter. I have considered the submission of both the counsel and perused the material on record. So far as legal proposition is concerned, there cannot be dispute that transfer is an incident of service, the authority is always competent to transfer its employees whenever there is exigency of service or administrative reason arises and ordinarily it is not to be interfered with unless there is violation of statutory provision or malice imputed against the authority competent who has passed the order impugned within the scope of judicial review available under Article 226 of the Constitution. So far as submission made by counsel with respect to competence of the authority is concerned, document Ann.R/1 has been placed on record to show that approval of the impugned transfer has been obtained from the Zonal Manager who is competent and its order has been carried CW 4573/08 [4] out by the authority subordinate thereto. As such, the submission made by the counsel for petitioner is without substance. So far as submission made with respect to Policy laid down by the Bank for Officers is concerned, suffice it to say that such Policies have no statutory force and are for guidance for the administrative authorities while taking decision, but at the same time, it has to be looked into and it is true that under the Policy there is a clause that officers who have three years service remained to their credit should not be disturbed from their working place, but at the same time, there is a further clause that no officers shall remain posted at one station for more than 7 years. In the instant case, petitioner remained at one station as an Officer for almost 16 years by now. This court does not find any error in passing order impugned by the respondents. As regards submission made with regard to illness of petitioner's wife that can always be considered by the authority competent. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, if any representation is made by petitioner, it is expected from the authority to consider the same sympathetically taking note of illness of his wife. No order as to costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA4573CW2008 10-7.doc