L M DHARMIK Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India against the banking company challenging the guidelines issued by the respondent-banking company with respect to request transfer of the employees and officers of the respondent bank. Petitioners are employees of the respondent bank and the respondent bank has issued certain guidelines on 13.12.1979 for regulating the request transfer of employees of the respondent-Bank of Baroda (for short, 'the Bank'). It appears that the respondent bank has several branches in the country and, therefore, the employees may be required to be transferred from one branch to another, from one station to another and some times it so happens that the respondent itself may transfer employees from one station to another. Sometimes it may also happen that the employees may make requests for his/her transfer from one station to another. Therefore, with a view to regulate the applications of the employees for their transfer from one place to another, the respondent bank issued guidelines to determine as to how the applications for request transfer should be considered and entertained by the respondent bank. Some guidelines appear to have been issued in the past and by fresh guidelines on 13.12.1979, new guidelines have been issued and the said general guidelines show that they are in supersession of the existing guidelines. Therefore, these are the latest guidelines issued by the respondent bank for considering request transfer of the employees and officers of the respondent bank. The aforesaid guidelines are reproduced for ready reference as follows since they have been placed at page 40 to the petition: "GENERAL GUIDELINES

(2.) The say of the petitioners is that the respondent bank, a nationalized bank, is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the respondent is required to work and act judiciously and in a rationale manner. That from that angle certain guidelines are not reasonable and rationale and, therefore, the petitioners challenge guidelines No.1, 3 and 7. Therefore, the question required to be considered is as to whether these guidelines are not rationale or reasonable from any angle whatsoever. Guideline No.1 shows that it is the management's discretion to consider requests for transfer and it may reject any request without assigning reasons.

(3.) As against this, learned Advocate for the respondent has also submitted that the petitioners possess no right of transfer to a particular zone or a particular place. In support of the said argument, learned Advocate for the respondent has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Jayantibhai v. G.M. (Personnel), Bank of Baroda dated 11.5.1999 in Special Civil Application No.3592/99. It appears from the copy of the said judgment that the petitioner in the aforesaid matter was employee of Bank of Baroda. He preferred aforesaid Special Civil Application for a direction to the respondent bank to post the petitioner by granting request transfer at Ahmedabad. This Court has observed in the said judgment that these are matters for consideration of the respondents and the petitioner has no legal or fundamental right for posting at a particular place. Therefore, it is not permissible for this Court to issue writ of mandamus. Even otherwise, transfer is understanding of service and, therefore, this is never considered as a right vested in an employee to get transfer at a particular station. Apart from the said position, the point to be noted is that the request transfers are being permitted in the employment of the respondent bank and the applications are being considered on the strength of the guidelines issued as aforesaid. The only point is as to whether the petitioners have right to know the reasons as to why their applications are rejected.