Rajasthan High Court
Bansi Lal Sunariwal S/O Sh. Lala ... vs State Bank Of India on 13 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9878/2022
Bansi Lal Sunariwal S/o Sh. Lala Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o
A-89, Chandwardai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan (Posted As Deputy
Manager At Main Branch State Bank Of India, Beawar, Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Thorugh Its Chairman State Bank
Building 14Th Floor Madam Cama Road Nariman Point
Mumbai 400021.
2. Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Local Head
Office, C-Scheme, Circle Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
13/07/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 21.06.2022 whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from AO-3 Kota to AO-5 Bikaner. Grievance of the
petitioner is that earlier the petitioner was an employee of State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and after merger of the State Bank of
Bikaner and Jaipur with the State Bank of India in the year 2017,
the petitioner became an employee of State Bank of India.
Counsel further submits that the respondents have wrongly
transferred the petitioner by counting his period of stay at Ajmer
and Beawar in earlier bank.
According to the period of stay submitted by the petitioner
(Annx.2) the petitioner has worked in District Ajmer from 2013 to
(2 of 4) [CW-9878/2022]
2021 and most of the time he remain posted at Beawar only which
is his present place of posting.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India
and Anr. Vs. Deepak Niranjan Pandit and Anr. reported in
(2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 404 in para Nos. 3 and 4 has
held as under:-
"3.The High Court, in interfering with the order
of transfer, has relied on two circumstances.
Firstly, the High Court has noted that as a
result of the stay on the order of transfer, the
headquarters of the respondent will remain at
Mumbai and even if he is to be suspended, his
headquarters will continue to remain at
Mumbai. The second reason, which was
weighed with the High Court, is that the
spouse of the respondent suffers from a
cardiac ailment and is obtaining medical
treatment in Mumbai. In our view, neither of
these reasons can furnish a valid justification
for the High Court to take recourse to its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution in passing an order of
injunction of this nature. Significantly, the High
Court has not even found a prima facie case to
the effect that the order of transfer was either
mala fide or in breach of law. The High Court
could not have dictated to the employer as to
where the respondent should be posted during
the period of suspension. Individual hardships
are matters for the Union of India, as an
employer, to take a dispassionate view.
4.However, we are categorically of the view
that the impugned order of the High Court
interfering with the order of transfer was in
excess of jurisdiction and an improper exercise
of judicial power. We are constrained to
observe that the impugned order has been
passed in breach of the settled principles and
precedents which have consistently been
enunciated and followed by this Court. The
manner in which judicial power has been
exercised by the High Court to stall a lawful
order of transfer is disquieting. We express our
disapproval".
(3 of 4) [CW-9878/2022]
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of 'Rajendra
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in
(2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 178, in para Nos. 8, 9 & 10,
has held as under:-
"8. A Government Servant has no vested right
to remain posted at a place of his choice nor
can he insist that he must be posted at one
place or the other. He is liable to be
transferred in the administrative exigencies
from one place to the other. 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 contrary. No
Government can function if the Government
Servant insists that once appointed or posted
in a particular place or position, he should
continue in such place or position as long as
he desires (see State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal;
SCC P.406 para 7).
9. The courts are always reluctant in
interfering with the transfer of an employee
unless such transfer is vitiated by violation of
some statutory provisions or suffers from mala
fides. In Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar & Ors.1,
this Court held : (SCC p.661, para 4)
"4. In our opinion, the courts should not
interfere with a transfer order which is
made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer
orders are made in violation of any
mandatory statutory rule or on the ground
of mala fide. A government servant
holding a transferable post has no vested
right to remain posted at one place or the
other, he is liable to be transferred from
one place to the other. Transfer orders
issued by the competent authority do not
violate any of his legal rights. Even if a
transfer order is passed in violation of
executive instructions or orders, the
courts ordinarily should not interfere with
the order instead affected party should
approach the higher authorities in the
department. If the courts continue to
interfere with day-to- day transfer orders
issued by the government and its
subordinate authorities, there will be
complete chaos in the administration
which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court overlooked these
aspects in interfering with the transfer
orders."10. In N.K. Singh v. Union of India, this
(4 of 4) [CW-9878/2022]
Court reiterated that : (SCC p. 103;
para 6)\"6. ... the scope of judicial
review in matters of transfer of a
Government Servant to an equivalent
post without adverse consequence on
the service or career prospects is very
limited being confined only to the
grounds of mala fides or violation of
any specific provision...."
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner is an employee of
the bank cannot claim to work at a particular place of his choice,
secondly, for last about eight years, the petitioner is working in
the District Ajmer and most of the time he was posted at Beawar
only and lastly in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matters of U.O.I. & Rajendra Singh (supra),
no case is made out for interference by this court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /93
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
