THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1242 OF 2008 Dated 28th January, 2008 Between: M.V.S.N.Murthy …Petitioner And UCO Bank and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.1242 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner, who is working as Manager in the UCO Bank, has filed this writ petition questioning his transfer order, dated 16-01-2008, by which he was transferred from Visakhapatnam Main Branch to Zonal Office, Trivendrum Zone. The petitioner joined the respondent-UCO Bank as an Officer Scale-I on 04-07-1982. His initial posting was at Calcutta and he worked at Patna and Calcutta Offices up to December, 1987. In January, 1988 he was transferred to the Branch Office, Hindustan Ship Yard, Visakhapatnam, A.P.Zone. In January, 2002 he was transferred to Regional Inspectorate, Bangalore. He was designated as Assistant Chief Officer (Inspection and Vigilance). On completion of four years term, he was posted at the Branch Office, Hindustan Zinc Smelter Factory, Visakhapatnam in September, 2006 as Manager and on 31- 10-2007 he was posted at Main Branch Office, Visakhapatnam as Manager. While the matter stood thus, the impugned transfer order was issued. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the transfer policy guidelines formulated by the Bank, Officers in Scale-I, II and III, except in case of promotion and repatriation, will normally be posted within the zone to which they belong. It is also the case of the petitioner that as per the said guidelines the Inspecting Officers, who served in other zones, shall be given posting in the zone from where they were transferred earlier, on completion of three years in inspection assignment, and as such he was given posting in Andhra Pradesh Zone, and the impugned transfer order was passed by the Bank in contravention of the transfer policy guidelines and without any valid reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that zonal transfers normally will not be effected, as a policy guideline, during the months of January to March of every year. Though the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears that the transfer order, prima facie, is not in conformity with the transfer policy guidelines formulated by the Bank, but still, in case of violation of such guidelines also, the petitioner cannot seek retention at a particular place by way of seeking a Mandamus from this Court. The transfer policy guidelines are formulated by the Bank for their internal administration and in case of exigency, transfers can be made, which is not contrary to the transfer policy guidelines, and in such an event, there will not be any right to the person, who is transferred, to seek retention at a particular place. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned transfer order so as to interfere with the same. However, as it is stated that the transfer is contrary to the guidelines formulated by the Bank itself, I permit the petitioner to make a representation to the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Zonal Office, Hyderabad for reconsideration of the transfer order. If such a representation is filed, the Assistant General Manager shall consider the same and communicate the decision accordingly to the petitioner. With the said observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Dated 28th January, 2008 vrn