[2025:RJ-JP:3507] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 982/2025 Bhagat Singh Meena S/o Shri Phool Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Chhan, Post Jiwali, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Gangapur City (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Chairman-Cum- Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. 2. General Manager, Personal Administration Department/ Human Resource Department, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. 3. Senior Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Ridhi Tower, 1St Floor, SB-57, Bapu Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 23/01/2025 1. The present petition is filed assailing the transfer order dated 12.04.2024 issued by the respondents transferring the petitioner from Jaipur to Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office Tanjore, Tamil Nadu on the post of Assistant Manager. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present is the second transfer order passed against the petitioner as vide transfer order dated 18.12.2023 the petitioner was transferred to the erstwhile place of posting (in Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:3507] (2 of 6) [CW-982/2025] Rajasthan only). It is further submitted that the said transfer orders are passed in an insensitive manner without considering the personal difficulties of the petitioner. While the petitioner was rendering his services at Jodhpur Branch of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner got married i.e. in the year 2013 and out of the wedlock two children were born who as on date are approximately 10 years and 7 years of age. 3. Nevertheless, being aggrieved of the said frequent transfers the petitioner has time and again submitted representations before the competent authority, stating his utmost sincere difficulty that his younger child (Aditya Meena) who was born in the year 2016 is diagnosed with permanent disability since birth and is suffering from “Wilson Turner Syndrome” and is also “Cornelia De Lange Syndrome” due to which the development and growth of the child is hindered and the child is unable to speak clearly and walk normally. 4. At this nascent juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court with the fact that the present is second round of litigation, as assailing the impugned transfer order dated 12.04.2024 a writ petition bearing No.13836/2024 titled as Bhagat Singh Meena vs. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Indian Overseas Bank and Ors. was filed whereby this Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 disposed of the said petition with the direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents. In compliance of the said directions of the Court the petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 07.12.2024 however the respondents vide its order dated 24.12.2024 rejected the said representation. [2025:RJ-JP:3507] (3 of 6) [CW-982/2025] 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the Court file along with relevant records. 6. Upon a perusal of the file it can be inferred that the petitioner has time and again made several applications seeking directions for transferring himself to a specific place of posting or cancellation of transfer orders (Annexure-7-colly). Nevertheless, the reply to the representation dated 07.12.2024 categorically states that at the request of the petitioner made in July, 2018, the petitioner was transferred back to Jaipur region and as on date the petitioner has already completed more than five years of service in Jaipur region. The relevant extract from the order dated 24.12.2024 is reproduced herein below:- “Your contention is that Bank has been aware of your child’s condition for a long time and that you have been sending repeated appeals to the Bank and that you have not received any response or acknowledgement from the Bank is false. The annual transfer exercise for 2024-25 was completed in April 2024 and as per the regional requirements, many Officers were transferred keeping in view the requirement/vacancies across the regions. Under the same process, you were transferred to Tanjore due to staffing requirements at Tanjore Region. Your transfer was effected to fulfill regional requirements at Tanjore Region. You had submitted your son’s disability certificate dated 10.06.2024 after 2 months of the transfer order issued to you. As the transfers were already effected, and since there was no requirement at Jaipur region, your request was not considered. [2025:RJ-JP:3507] (4 of 6) [CW-982/2025] You have also quoted our transfer policy stating that a tenure of an Officer shall not be for more than 3 years in the branch/Office and as you have joined Shop Branch in December 2023, you are eligible to continue at Jaipur Region for one more term. In this regard, please be advised that the transfer policy is to be read in totality and not in parts. As per the clause 3 (C) of transfer policy, postings in a region are for a period of minimum of one term, i.e., 3 years of effective service. Thereafter Officers are liable to be transferred anywhere in India. You had completed more than 5 years of effective service in Jaipur Region. We reiterate that your transfer was done on administrative grounds and was not biased as you claim. We have taken cognizance of your request letter dated 07.12.2024. We regret to inform you that your request for retention or transfer to a nearby region is not deemed feasible given the pressing needs of our Tanjore region. The Banks transfer policy is designed to ensure optimal distribution of Officers across branches and regions.” 7. It is noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, through a plethora of judgments, has time and again held that the permissibility and scope of judicial review against transfer orders is minuscule. The rationale exercised to circumscribe the Courts interference with transfer orders whilst exercising writ jurisdiction, primarily pertains to the fact that a bedlam of an aggravated magnitude shall ensue within the workings of the Government, if all employees, posted at a location of their liking, refuse to and/or contest their postings, when issued on account of administrative exigencies. Inevitably, the only scope of interference subsists in an [2025:RJ-JP:3507] (5 of 6) [CW-982/2025] eventuality where the transfer orders are issued on account of certain malafides, at the end of the transferring authority. 8. The consideration regarding which employee should be posted ‘where’, falls purely within the administrative domain of the appropriate authority/department to decide, in the best interests of the working of the said department, whilst seeking to advance the department’s resultant output and service efficiency. Unless the order is vitiated by malafides or is passed in violation of any applicable statutory provisions, the Courts ought not to extend interference in such orders. By logical deduction, it is made rather obvious that no Government will be able to smoothly function if the Government Servants insist that once appointed or posted in a particular place, they should continue at such place, as long as they desire whilst meeting out their individualistic and familial ease. The fact of the transfer being an indispensable part of an employee’s service is of paramount importance, which often loses favourability at the end of the employee, when they become comfortable with the place of their choosing. 9. It is noted that a government employee, posted at a location of their liking, does not have the fundamental protection to continue serving at the said location, especially in light of the fact that the incident of transfer, is a part and parcel of the conditions of service, when employed on a transferable post. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the concerned employees but on that score alone, the order of transfer cannot be struck down. Administrative exigencies ought to prevail and/or take precedence over the familial and individualistic priorities of the employees [2025:RJ-JP:3507] (6 of 6) [CW-982/2025] posted on transferable jobs. The only eventuality, where the Courts may extend interference in transfer orders, is when the transfer orders violate an applicable statute or are passed on account of certain malice. In support of the aforesaid reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Shilpi Bose (Mrs.) and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659, Varadha Rao vs. State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (1986) 4 SCC 131, Rajendra Roy vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 148, National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Shri Bhagwan reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574 and S.K. Nausad Rahaman vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1. 10. Having made the observations noted herein-above regarding the scope of judicial review/interference in transfer orders, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition with directions to the respondent-Department/employer to the effect that the respondent-Department/employer shall be at liberty in the future to pass necessary orders qua the petitioner’s transfer, keeping in mind the paramount consideration of administrative exigency, if any, independent of any observations made insofar. 11. Accordingly, in terms of the above, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/56