IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 23445 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.K.GOPINATH ,S/O. K.K.KRISHNAN, DEPUTY MANAGER, S.B.I, KASARAGOD, AGED 58 YEARS, 32/102 A, THALAYI, TEMPLE GATE POST, THALASSERY 6701023. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE ANNEXE, ADMINISTRATION WING II, REGION V, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM 682 031. BY SRI. P.V.SURENDRANATH,SC, S.B.I. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 26th August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, an Officer in the Middle Management Gr.II Level in the service of the State Bank of India challenges his transfer from Kannur to Kasargod. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that as he is due to retire from service on 31.12.2010, he is entitled to be posted at Kannur,his native place. The petitioner submits that he was transferred from Thalassery and posted as Deputy Manager in the Kannur Branch of the State Bank of India by Exhibit P2 order passed on 12.6.2007 and that the transfer from Kannur to Kasargod within one year thereafter is arbitrary and issued overlooking the fact that he suffers from heart ailment. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders of transfer, evidenced by Exhibit P6 and P7 and for a direction to the respondents to consider his request in the representations evidenced by Exhibits P3 W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 2 and P5 to retain him at Kannur. The Apex Court has in in State of U.P and others Vs. Gobardhan Lal [(2004) 11 SCC 402] held as follows: “It is too late in the day for any government servant to contend that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or conditions of service. Unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of a mala fide exercise of power or violative of any statutory provision (an Act or rule) or passed by an authority not competent to do so, an order of transfer cannot lightly be interfered with as a matter of course or routine for any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even any or every type of grievance sought to be made. Even administrative guidelines or regulating transfers or containing transfer policies at best may afford an opportunity to the officer or servant concerned to approach their higher authorities for redress but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer a particular officer/servant to any place in public interest and as is found necessitated by exigencies of service as long as the official status is not affected adversely and there is no infraction of any career prospects such as seniority, scale of pay and secured emoluments. This Court has often reiterated that the order of transfer made even in transgression of administrative guidelines cannot also be interfered with, as they do not confer any legally W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 3 enforceable rights, unless, as noticed supra, shown to be vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provision.” 3. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court, unless the petitioner establishes that the order of transfer is one passed by an incompetent authority or is vitiated by malafides or is in violation of any statutory rule, the order transferring the petitioner from Kannur to Kasargod cannot be interfered with. Apart from the vague allegation that the order of transfer is mala fide and was brought about due to political interference, the petitioner has not been able to establish that political considerations weighed with the authorities in ordering his transfer. The petitioner has also no case that the order of transfer was passed by an incompetent authority or that it is one issued in violation of any statutory rule. Such being the situation, I find no ground to interfere with the orders of transfer evidenced by Exhibits P6 and P7. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the health condition of the petitioner, he may be permitted to file a representation W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 4 before the second respondent setting out his grievances and seeking a reconsideration of the transfer effected as per Exhibits P6 and P7. Sri.P.V.Surendranath, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that if the petitioner makes such a representation that will certainly be considered with an open mind. In these circumstances, while dismissing the writ petition, I reserve liberty with the petitioner to submit a representation before the second respondent setting out his grievances and seeking reconsideration of the transfer effected as per Exhibits P6 and P7. If the petitioner files such a representation, the second respondent shall consider the same and take a decision thereon, at the earliest and in any case, within one month from the date on which the petitioner moves the second respondent. (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 5 W.P ( C) No.23445 of 2008 6