[2025:RJ-JP:33763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12666/2025 Rishiraj Meena S/o Shri Prathviraj Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Flat No. 505, Yellow Building, Lotus Villa, Goner Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.) Working On The Post Of Manager, In Union Bank Of India, Jagatpura Regional Office, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Bank Of India, Through Chief General Manager (Hr), Employee Relations Division, Human Resources Vertical, Central Office, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021/ 2. Dy. General Manager (HR), Union Bank Of India, Zonal Office, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena with Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is holding the post of General Secretary of Union Bank of SC/ST Employees' Association, Zonal Office, Jaipur. The Association is having 425 members and as per Staff Circular No. 8546 dated 24.02.2025 issued by the Chief Engineer Manager of respondent- Union Bank, general exemptions including protection from transfer has been granted to the office bearers of Association/Unions where membership of such Association is more than 300 officers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in ignorance of aforesaid Staff Circular No. 8546 dated [2025:RJ-JP:33763] (2 of 3) [CW-12666/2025] 24.02.2025, the petitioner has been transferred from Jagatpura Branch of respondent-Bank to Hindaun Brnach on the post of Manager, which is apparently against the aforesaid staff circular. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's wife is also a Government servant and is working on the post of Assistant Accounts Officer-II in the office of Director, Homeopathic, Jaipur. However, ignoring the prevailing policy of posting the spouses at one place as far as possible, the impugned transfer order has been passed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments of this Court in the cases of Mr. Devesh Gupta Vs. RSRTC & Ors. (S.B. CWP No.12275/2009) decided on 12.10 2009 and Foranta Bai Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B.CWP No. 40/2024) in order to support his contention that the husband and wife should be kept at one place. It has also been submitted that the order impugned has been issued by an incompetent authority. 4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that transfer is an incident of service and no employee has got perpetual right to continue at one place for all times to come in his service career. It is well within the rights of the employer to transfer any of its employee on occurrence of administrative exigency at the place of choice of the employer. 6. It is also settled that the guidelines or circulars are not enforceable under law so far as, transfer matters are concerned. In case, the concerned employee has got any grievance, in the [2025:RJ-JP:33763] (3 of 3) [CW-12666/2025] light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Shilpi Bose, 1991 Supplement 2 SCC 659, he/she can submit representation before the concerning authority raising all his/her grievances. 7. Merely, on account of being office bearer of Association of Union Bank, the petitioner is not absolved from general service conditions of the employees of respondent-Bank, more particularly when he is holding the post of Manager and is liable to be transferred anywhere in the country, where the branches of respondent-Bank are situated. 8. As regards, the grounds raised by the petitioner that his wife is also a Government servant under the Government of Rajasthan, it is suffice to observe that admittedly employers of petitioner and his wife are altogether different and even otherwise the petitioner, vide impugned order, has not been transferred outside the territory of State of Rajasthan. There can be no absolute rule to post husband and wife at the same place, more particularly when the employers are different. Hence, such grounds raised by the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been issued by the incompetent authority, the learned counsel for he petitioner has utterly failed to point out any statutory rule showing that the order is passed by an incompetent authority. 9. In view of above, there is no force in the writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/11