Smti Sarmistha Borah vs The Assam Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors.

Heard Mr. R. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, for all the respondents.

By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the transfer and posting order dated 15.10.2025, issued by the General Manager, Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, whereby as many as 8 (eight) officers/officials, including the petitioner, have been transferred and posted at different places. By the said order, the petitioner has been transferred from Guwahati Regional Office at Guwahati to Ganakpukhuri Branch, Golaghat, as Assistant Manager.

The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant (M) in the year 2013 and was posted at Golaghat Branch and thereafter, at Narikalguri Branch under the Golaghat Region. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Officer, JMG Scale-I (Assistant Manager) vide order dated 29.05.2020 and was posted at Guwahati Branch and had joined on 10.08.2020. Subsequently, by order dated 29.04.2025, the petitioner was transferred from Guwahati Branch to Guwahati Regional Office, Guwahati, and accordingly joined at the said Regional Office.

Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 15.10.2025, as many as 8 (eight) officers/officials, including the petitioner, have been transferred and posted at different places. By the said order, the petitioner has been transferred from the Regional Office, Guwahati to Ganakpukhuri Branch, Golaghat. Aggrieved by the said transfer order, the petitioner has approached this Court, essentially on the ground that the impugned transfer is in violation of the Transfer Policy of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025.

Mr. R. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the transfer policy of the bank, submits that the transfer order has been issued in violation of the said Transfer Policy of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025. Referring to Clause 4 of the common guidelines for transfer, he submits that female officers/employees are, as far as possible, to be transferred to nearby places/stations/regions where their husbands or parents are stationed, or as near as possible to such place, subject to availability of vacancy and administrative convenience.

Learned counsel further refers to Clauses 2 and 6 of the Transfer Rules for Officers contained in the said Transfer Policy. Referring to Clause 2, he submits that no officer shall remain posted in the same capacity/position for more than 3 (three) years and normally, an officer shall not be rotated/transferred before completion of 1 (one) year. Referring to Clause 6, he submits that after completion of 2 (two) tenures, i.e. 6 (six) years, in one Region, an officer is to be transferred to another Region, with the Head Office being considered as a Region for the said purpose. However, if an officer has not been posted in his/her home Region or an adjacent Region for 6 (six) years, such officer is to be posted to his/her home Region or a nearby Region, as far as possible, with priority being given on the basis of distance and length of posting.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s husband is working at Guwahati and therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have considered her case for posting at Guwahati or at least at a place nearby Guwahati. Since the petitioner has not completed 1 (one) year at the present place of posting, i.e. Guwahati Regional Office, at the time of issuance of transfer order, the transfer of the petitioner is in violation of aforementioned Clause 2 as she is sought to be transferred before completion of 1 (one) year. More so, the petitioner has not completed 6 (six) years in a particular region and therefore, she ought not to have been transferred in other region as she was posted in the year 2020 from Golaghat to Guwahati.

Mr. Sarma, learned counsel, further submits that the petitioner has submitted her representation for reconsideration of her transfer from Guwahati to Golaghat before the General Manager as well as the Grievance Redressal Cell. However, the said representation appears to have been considered and rejected by the General Manager, who is not the competent authority to consider the petitioner’s grievance in view of the fact that under the Transfer Policy, the grievance of an officer against an order of transfer is required to be considered by the Grievance Redressal Cell.

On the other hand, Mr. A. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Bank, submits that the petitioner was transferred from the Guwahati Regional Office to Ganakpukhuri Branch under the Golaghat Region vide order dated 15.10.2025 purely on account of administrative exigency and operational necessity. He submits that the impugned order has been issued by the competent authority after due approval and in accordance with the Transfer Policy of the Bank. The Ganakpukhuri Branch is having negative business parameters and in view of the approaching annual closing, required immediate corrective measures and deployment of a suitable officer.

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner, being an officer holding a transferable post, is liable to be transferred in accordance with the terms and conditions of her service. The petitioner’s contention that adequate medical facilities or family support are unavailable at the transferred place is factually incorrect and untenable. The Ganakpukhuri Branch is situated near the petitioner’s hometown and adequate medical facilities are available in and around the said station. He submits that the transfer has been made purely on administrative grounds and no mala fide can be attributed to the respondent authorities.

Mr. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, further submits that the contention that no other officer has been transferred from the Ganakpukhuri Branch or no officer has been posted in place of the petitioner at the Guwahati Regional Office is misconceived, as transfer and posting are matters within the administrative domain of the competent authority and do not require parity or mutual exchange. He submits that the Guwahati Regional Office has surplus officers, whereas the Golaghat Region is facing shortage of manpower, which has adversely affected the business of the Bank. The petitioner’s transfer is made keeping in view the overall administrative and operational requirements of the Bank.

In support of his submission, Mr. Ganguly, learned Standing Counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 4124/2024, dated 09.09.2024, in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. Vs. Sh. Jagadish Barman & Ors.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record, including the Transfer Policy of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025.

As reflected, the petitioner initially entered the service of the Bank as Office Assistant (M) in the year 2013 and was thereafter promoted to the post of Officer, JMG Scale-I (Assistant Manager) vide order dated 29.05.2020. Upon such promotion, she was transferred from Narikalguri Branch under Golaghat Region to Guwahati Branch, where she joined on 10.08.2020. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.04.2025, she was transferred from Guwahati Branch to Guwahati Regional Office and joined there on 06.05.2025. While serving at the Guwahati Regional Office, the petitioner, along with 7 (seven) other officers/officials, have been transferred to different places of posting vide the common transfer order dated 15.10.2025. By the said order, the petitioner has been transferred from Guwahati Regional Office to Ganakpukhuri Branch under Golaghat Region.

Essentially, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of transfer on the ground of violation of the Transfer Policy of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025, which regulates the transfer and posting of officers/employees of the Bank. The said Transfer Policy has been framed in line with the letter dated 20.02.2025, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services.

To appreciate, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant provisions of the Transfer Policy, which are reproduced hereinbelow:

A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that the Transfer Policy itself recognises the requirement of administrative convenience and availability of vacancy while considering the posting and transfer of officers. In particular, Clause 4 of the common guidelines provides that female officers/employees would be transferred, as far as possible, to nearby places/stations/regions where their husbands or parents are stationed, subject to availability of vacancy and administrative convenience. Thus, the provision does not confer an absolute or indefeasible right upon a female officer to claim posting at a particular place merely on the ground that her husband is stationed there.

In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has been serving at Guwahati since her promotion in the year 2020. Though she was initially posted at Guwahati Branch, she was subsequently transferred to the Guwahati Regional Office, which is also situated at Guwahati. Thus, the petitioner has continued to serve at Guwahati for about 5 (five) years before issuance of the impugned transfer order. The fact that she was transferred from the Guwahati Branch to the Guwahati Regional Office only on 29.04.2025 cannot, in the facts of the present case, be considered in isolation for the purpose of examining her overall tenure at Guwahati.

It is no doubt that the authorities/employers are ordinarily required to adhere to the transfer policy while effecting transfer and posting of their employees/officers. At the same time, the administrative exigencies and larger public interest cannot be overlooked. The employer/competent authority is best person to assess its administrative requirements and to determine where and when its employees/officers are required to be posted taking into account the exigencies of administration and public interest.

As recorded above, the petitioner was transferred from Golaghat Region to Guwahati in the year 2020 and was initially posted at the Guwahati Branch. Thereafter, she was transferred and posted at the Guwahati Regional Office, which is also situated within Guwahati city. Thus, the petitioner has continued to serve at Guwahati for about 5 (five) years. The subsequent transfer of the petitioner, along with 7 (seven) other officers/officials, appears to have been effected on account of administrative convenience and exigency.

The provisions of the Transfer Policy, referred to hereinabove, particularly those relating to posting near the place where the husband is stationed and completion of one year at a particular place of posting, cannot be construed as conferring an absolute or enforceable right upon the petitioner, particularly when such provisions are subject to administrative convenience and exigency. As regards the petitioner’s contention that she has been transferred before completion of 1 (one) year at the Guwahati Regional Office, it is evident that, despite her subsequent transfer from the Guwahati Branch to the Guwahati Regional Office, she has remained posted at Guwahati for about 5 (five) years. Therefore, the claim for transfer before the completion of 1 (one) year cannot be countenanced.

As regards the tenure of 6 (six) years in one region, same would not be considered to be mandatory for the simple reason that the authorities have the power and authority to transfer its employees taking into consideration of the administrative convenience and exigencies. Therefore, the provisions laid down in the transfer policy cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

It is well settled that transfer is an exigency of service and an employee cannot claim a particular place of posting as a matter of right. Administrative circulars and guidelines regulating transfer and posting ordinarily do not confer any vested or enforceable right upon an employee. In Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Mrs. Durgesh Kuwar, reported in (2020) 19 SCC 46, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that unless an order of transfer is shown to be vitiated by mala fide, contrary to a statutory provision, or issued by an incompetent authority, the Court, in exercise of judicial review, would ordinarily not interfere with such order.

The aforesaid principle assumes greater relevance in the present case inasmuch as the petitioner seeks to rely upon the provision of the Transfer Policy relating to posting of female officers near the place where their husbands are stationed. In S.K. Nausad Rahaman & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2022) 12 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the executive instructions and administrative directions concerning transfer and posting do not confer an indefeasible right to claim a particular posting and the individual convenience is subject to the overarching needs of administration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further observed that policies providing for posting of spouses at the same station, preferably and as far as practicable, are themselves subject to the requirements of administration and do not enable an employee to claim such posting as a matter of right.

In the present case, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim enforcement of the provisions of the Transfer Policy as an absolute right. Mere deviation from or non-adherence to a transfer guideline, by itself, would not constitute a sufficient ground for interference with an order of transfer unless such order is shown to be vitiated by mala fide, violation of any statutory provision, or other recognised ground warranting interference. The petitioner has not, in fact not pleaded at all, made out any case of mala fide or violation of any statutory provision. The challenge of the petitioner is essentially founded upon the alleged violation of the Transfer Policy, which is admittedly in the nature of an administrative guideline and not a statutory rule. More so, no violation as such is established.

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that no case is made out requiring any interference with the impugned transfer order dated 15.10.2025, as there no material to establish any mala fide or violation of any statutory provision. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed, being devoid of merit.

However, dismissal of the present writ petition shall not preclude the respondent authorities from considering the case of the petitioner in the light of Clause 4 of the Transfer Policy of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, 2025. For such consideration, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the competent authority again.

Needless to say, the interim order passed earlier shall stand merged with this order.

Writ petition stands disposed of.