ANNADA SHANKAR JENA Vs. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant (A and C) of the State Bank of India (for short, 'SBI'), Cuttack Main Branch, in this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order of his transfer made by the Deputy General Manager (C.B.), opp. party No. 1 and to allow him to continue in his present place of posting.

(2.) BRIEF facts : The Deputy General Manager (C.B.), opp. party No. 1 issued guidelines vide letter No. PER (CB) 2/298 dated 14.3.1997, Annexure -1 indicating the details of procedure for appointment of computer operators as well as subsequent inter -network transfers. As provided in Clause 4 of Annexure -1, net inflow and outflow of employees to/from the network should be balanced by an equal number of transfers by identifying the employees on the basis of seniormost among the willing employees and (or) otherwise the juniormost employees of the branch in that order. It is manifest that the aforesaid guideline is prescribed with a view to accommodate the computer operators at the centres of the SBI, Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Ten numbers of computer operators joined at SBI Main Branch, Cuttack and outside branches and therefore, 10 numbers of employees working in that branch were to be transferred as per the aforesaid guideline. Out of 140 employees, the petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No. 107. In order to balance the number of employees working in the branch, opp. party No. 1 vide order dated 3 1.7.1997, Annexure -3 transferred 11 numbers of employees from Cuttack Branch to other branches. The petitioner is neither a senior employee, his name being at Sl. No. 107, nor is he the juniormost employee, 33 employees being below him as borne out from the list, Annexure -2. When it is clearly provided under Clause 4 of Annexure -1 that the net inflow and outflow of employees to/from the network would be balanced by an equal number of transfers by identifying the employees on the basis of (i) seniormost among the willing employees and (ii) otherwise juniormost employees of that branch on that order, surprisingly while making transfer, no option or willingness was called for from the seniormost employees of the branch. Instead, the authorities effected transfers from amongst the juniormost employees. This action of opp. party No. 1, it is asserted, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Clause 4 of Annexure -1. The petitioner further contends that there are some employees junior to him and are working in the very same branch, but they have not been disturbed. Moreover, when 10 numbers of computer operators have been appointed at the SBI Main Branch, Cuttack, equal number of employees were to be transferred. But opp. party No. 1 with mala fide intention and without assigning any reason effected transfer of 11 number of employees including the petitioner. It is urged that the action of opp. party No. 1 in transferring the petitioner being in violation of Clause 4 of Annexure -1 and actuated by mala fides, to undo the wrong, the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should quash the transfer order by issuing appropriate writ/order.

(3.) THE petitioner in his rejoinder contended, inter alia, that the ground taken by the opp. parties in not transferring the Assistant at Serial No. 118 who is junior to him is untenable, the reason being that in all the branches, whether big or small, a Cashier is required for day to day transaction. As regards the reason for not bringing the sports personnel within the fold of transfer, asserted by the opp. parties, the petitioner would urge that sports personnel are also working in small branches, like Cuttack Town, Pithapur, Jhanjir Mangala, S.C.B. Medical College Branches, besides the Main Branch. It is further stated that the demand of the SBI Staff Association not to transfer the sports personnel from SBI. Main Branch, Cuttack, was considered and accepted as one -time request with the observation that it would not be a precedent for future transfers under the policy as per the note of the Deputy General Manager in Annexure -7. In that view of the matter exclusion of the sports personnel from the purview of transfer on the basis of the communication of the Assistant General Manager, Annexure -C/2 cannot over -ride the decision of the Central Office under Annexure -7.