1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3027/2008 Rajiv Kumar Jain Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors. Date of Order :: 26.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Mahipal Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. ... After availing sabbatical leave from 10.2.2005 to 9.2.2008 the petitioner, a disabled person, was posted at Fatehnagar Branch of the respondent-Bank vide an order dated 1.3.2008 passed by the Sr. Regional Manager. The petitioner relying upon a circular dated 1.3.1988 (Annexure-12) claimed for posting either at his home town or at the place nearby thereto. As per the Sr. Branch Manager of the respondent- Bank the appointment of the petitioner is made at the nearest branch of his home town, where the vacancy was available. Being aggrieved by the same this petition for writ is preferred. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a disabled person, therefore, in light of the Circular dated 15.2.1988 (Annexure-11) and 1.3.1988 is required to be posted either at his home town or at the place nearby thereto. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner Fatehnagar is at a distant place from Vijaynagar i.e. home town of the petitioner. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. The Circular dated 15.2.1988 and 1.3.1988 prescribes that physically 2 handicapped persons are normally required to be kept at a branch nearby to their home town and they should be exempted from routine periodical transfers. In the instant matter the petitioner was on sabbatical leave from 10.2.2005 to 9.2.2008 and the respondents posted him at a branch where the vacancy was available that is also near to his home town. The petitioner is resident of Vijaynagar, Distt. Ajmer, wherefrom Fatehnagar is at the distance of about 150-175 kms. Such, distance cannot be said to be a place highly distant. The employer, while executing its policies and the administrative orders is required to keep so many exigencies under consideration and the availability of vacancy is a one quite important. The order impugned, therefore, does not warrant any interference of this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. While parting with the matter it is observed that looking to the disablement of the petitioner the respondents may consider case of the petitioner for his posting either at his home town or at a place quite nearby to his home town as and when vacancy becomes available or also otherwise if possible. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal