REKHA NEYPALLY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to call for the relevant records relating to and connected with Memorandum dated 07.05.2019 of the 3rd respondent and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and sought a consequential direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in Hyderabad region or in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(2.) Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Salloori Ramesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) It has been contended by the petitioner that she was initially appointed as a Cashier-cum-Clerk with the respondent Bank during September, 1986 and later on promoted as Scale-I Officer, Scale-II Officer and Scale-III Officer. The petitioner further submits that she has been discharging her duties to the best satisfaction of her superiors and every one concerned. The petitioner also submits that she was promoted as Scale-IV Officer on 01.06.2011 and posted to Chennai and, after rendering a considerable length of service in Chennai, she was posted back to Hyderabad on 06.08.2013 and presently she is working as Chief Manager in S.D.Road Branch. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she has not completed six years of service in Hyderabad, she is transferred to Chennai vide impugned orders dated 07.05.2019, therefore, the action of the respondents in transferring her to Chennai by the impugned orders is sought to be declared as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the transfer policy. The petitioner is also challenging the said transfer order on the ground that some of the employees of the respondent Bank are retained in their present place of working even after completion of six years of their service. To strength this, she has cited some of the names of such employees who are retained in their respective places, i.e., one Gollahalli Raviraj, Tadala Rajgopal, Juluri Sudhakar and Ameer Babu Sheikh and stated that they were all working in their respective places earlier than the petitioner, but the respondents, instead of transferring them, retained them and selectively picked and chosen the petitioner for transfer from Secunderabad to Chennai. The petitioner has also cited the name of one Veronica Tixiera, who has been working in Mumbai for more than ten years. Therefore, the petitioner contends that picking and choosing her only for transfer is arbitrary action of the respondents.