W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010375892026 + W.P.(C) 11676/2026, CM APPL. 54057-54058/2026 ROJEE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. R.K. Sahni, Ms. Pooja Handa and Mr. Ketan Narang, Advocates. versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Ms. Likivi K. Jakhalu and Ms. Aezal Aekram, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP with Mr. Sai Krishna Kumar Yadav, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 14.08.2026 1. The Petitioner, an officer of Punjab National Bank, was serving in JMG Scale I in the East Delhi Circle. In the 15th Selection Process for the Financial Year 2026-27, she was promoted to MMG Scale II and allocated to Circle Silchar, Assam. She reported at Circle Silchar on 30th April, 2026 and thereafter joined the Ghunghur Branch on 3rd May, 2026. 2. The placement notice required promotee officers to indicate ten Circle/ZAO preferences. The Petitioner gave ten preferences, confined to Delhi, NCR and areas of Uttar Pradesh, including Ghaziabad, Noida, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20 W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 2 of 6 Meerut, Aligarh, Moradabad, Gurugram and Agra. None of the Petitioner’s preferred locations was allotted to her. The notice itself stated that the vacancies were “only indicative” and that the actual vacancies available for allocation could vary. The preferences, therefore, did not create any entitlement to allocation in a particular Circle. 3. The reliefs sought are founded principally on family hardship. The Petitioner’s husband is employed as a Technician in the Signal and Telecommunication Department of the Northern Railway and is posted at Ghaziabad. She states that his duties require him to attend to complaints and remain on duty at varying hours. They have two minor children, a daughter aged about eight years and a son aged about six years. 4. The Petitioner also cites caregiving responsibilities. Her mother passed away in January, 2022; she is the only child of her parents; and her father is about 70 years old. She also refers to her paternal grandmother, Ms. Ramshree, stated to be about 90 years old, visually impaired and bedridden, and to her mother-in-law’s dependence. She contends that the posting at Silchar makes it difficult for her to attend to these responsibilities. 5. The Petitioner has also placed medical material on record, including treatment at Silchar for urticaria, advice dated 3rd June, 2026 for one month’s rest, and subsequent medical treatment at Ghaziabad. 6. It is unnecessary to decide whether the ailment was caused by the climate at Silchar. The medical record only requires consideration along with the Petitioner’s other circumstances. 7. The more material development is the Petitioner’s request for reversion after joining the promotional post. On 26th May, 2026, she applied through the Bank’s HRMS portal for voluntary reversion from Scale II to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20 W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 3 of 6 Scale I, specifically citing “extreme compassionate ground”. This was followed by a representation dated 30th May, 2026, accompanied by a self- declaration setting out her family circumstances. 8. Mr. R.K. Sahni, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner does not seek to avoid service. She wishes to continue in Scale II if accommodated at Ghaziabad, Delhi-NCR or a station reasonably proximate to her husband’s posting; failing such accommodation, she seeks consideration of her request for reversion. 9. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, counsel for the Bank, opposes any direction for posting at a chosen station. He submits that allocation on promotion is governed by available vacancies, administrative requirements and cadre-management considerations, and is distinct from an ordinary request transfer. The Petitioner had participated in the promotion process with notice that the vacancies were tentative and subject to change. In these circumstances, it is urged, personal hardship cannot override institutional staffing needs, nor can the Court substitute its view for that of the employer in matters of deployment. 10. That proposition is well settled. Transfer and posting are incidents of service and are governed by the exigencies of service. An employee has no fundamental or vested right to claim a transfer or posting of his or her choice, and individual convenience remains subject to the overarching needs of administration. Who should be transferred where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The Court cannot ordinarily interfere or substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authority.1 1 See: Union of India & Ors. v. S.L. Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357; S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 1. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20 W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 4 of 6 11. The case, however, does not turn on a claimed right to Ghaziabad or Delhi. The Petitioner has already joined the promotional posting and has invoked the Bank’s own Promotion Policy, which permits reversion after joining. The issue is whether that request has been considered by the competent authority in the manner required by the policy. 12. Point 17 of the Promotion Policy governs “Refusal/Reversion on Promotion”. Reversion is not a matter of right and remains discretionary. Point 17(c), however, permits an officer who has joined the higher scale to seek reversion within three months on specified medical grounds or on “extreme compassionate grounds”. Point 17(d) requires a Committee of Executives comprising the CGM (HR) and both GMs (HR) to recommend the proposal to the competent authority, namely the Executive Director (HR). 13. The Petitioner applied within a month of reporting at the allocated Circle, and thus within the prescribed period. Further, “extreme compassionate grounds” is an independent ground under Point 17(c); it is not confined to the terminal or critical illnesses specified in Point 17(b). Whether the Petitioner’s circumstances satisfy that standard is for the designated authority to assess, and not for this Court in the first instance. 14. The Petitioner also relies on the communication dated 8th August, 2014 issued by the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance. The communication advises Public Sector Banks, as far as possible, to accommodate a married female employee, on her request, at the place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place. 15. The aforesaid communication may not create an indefeasible right to be posted at a particular station, however it is a relevant policy This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20 W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 5 of 6 consideration, especially where a married female employee seeks accommodation at or near the place of her husband’s posting. The Bank retains discretion in matters of posting and cadre management, but that must be exercised after taking into account relevant policy instructions and the material placed by the employee. What is required in the present case is not a direction for a posting of choice, but a decision on the pending request in the manner contemplated by the Bank’s own policy. The Petitioner’s young children, her husband’s posting at Ghaziabad, elderly dependants, medical records and willingness to relinquish the promotion are not determinative outcomes in themselves; they are relevant inputs for that decision. They call for a policy-based determination by the authority entrusted with that discretion. 16. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: a. The competent authority shall consider, in the first instance, whether, having regard to available vacancies, administrative requirements and the applicable policy, the Petitioner can be accommodated in MMG Scale II at Ghaziabad, Delhi-NCR or any station reasonably proximate to her husband’s posting. The communication dated 8th August, 2014 issued by the Department of Financial Services shall be kept in view. b. If such accommodation is not feasible, the Petitioner’s reversion application dated 26th May, 2026 shall be processed under Point 17 of the Promotion Policy. The Committee of Executives comprising the CGM (HR) and both GMs (HR) shall examine the material and recommend the matter to the competent authority, specifically on the ground of “extreme compassionate grounds”. c. The entire exercise shall be completed within three weeks from today. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20 W.P.(C) 11676/2026 Page 6 of 6 The decision shall be by a reasoned and speaking order, disclosing the reasons for the course adopted, and shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. 17. Nothing in this order recognises any right to a particular posting or expresses any final view on reversion. Those matters are left to the authorities designated under the Bank’s policy. 18. The writ petition, together with the pending applications, stands disposed of in the above terms. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 14, 2026 nk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2026 at 11:43:20