HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13342/2024 Bhawani Singh Meena S/o Shri Naru Ram Meena, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 52-D, Shekhawati Nagar, Sikar Road No.6, Vkia, Murlipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. General Manager, Personal Administration Department/human Resource Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. Senior Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Ridhi Tower, 1St Floor, Sb57, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Ridhi Tower, 1St Floor, Sb57, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwinee Kumar Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ganesh Sharma Ms. Shipra Pandey, Chief Manager Mr. Sidharth Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 20/01/2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition is filed assailing the impugned transfer order dated 29.07.2024, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Jaipur to Bikaner. It is further submitted that respondent-Bank has committed serious illegality and arbitrariness while passing the said transfer order. (2 of 3) [CW-13342/2024] Further, it is submitted that the said transfer order is not issued by Competent-Authority, therefore, the same is sans any jurisdiction and is per-se illegal. Additionally, it submitted that the petitioner is transferred on a frequent basis i.e. within a period of approximately 2 years and 9 months, petitioner has been transferred on 6 occasions, which reflects discrimination by respondent-Bank towards petitioner and the said action of the respondent is against the Standard Operating Procedure of the Bank. Consequently, the petitioner has filed complaints against the malafides committed by the respective authorities. In compliance of the order dated 06.01.2025, concerned officer Ms. Shipra Pandey, Chief Manager of the concerned Bank has marked presence in the Court and furnished the transfer records of the petitioner. Concerned officer (present-in person) has submitted that transfer order dated 29.07.2024 was passed with the prior approval and concurrence of Senior Regional Manager. It is further submitted that SOP’s and transfer policies are the guidelines, therefore, ordinarily followed in letter and spirit. Additionally, petitioner’s services were deemed essential and therefore, utilized by transferring petitioner on deputation, for a short period of time (not more than two weeks), due to administrative exigencies. Therefore, the same cannot be equated with transfer, as same were required to address the pressing administrative and organizational needs of the respondent-Bank. Heard and considered. (3 of 3) [CW-13342/2024] Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and statements tendered by the concerned officer (present-in- person), and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has made the following observations:- 1. That transfer is an incidence of service. 2. That the said transfer order was passed with the prior approval of Senior Regional Manager, therefore the same is issued well within the jurisdiction of the authority. 3. That contention qua frequent transfer is also not made out as the same is made in accordance with the SOP’s, and to meet out the pressing administrative needs. 4. That as per the dictum encapsulated in Shilpi Bose and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 (2) SCC 659, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the said transfer order, as the same is made on account of administrative exigencies and the said order is not in violation of any statutory Rule. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /8