IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 20706 OF 2019(S-TR) BETWEEN:
Sri.Muralikrishnan V., S/o V.G.Vijayan, Aged about 29 years, R/o Variayath Veli House, Eramalloor, Alapuzha, Kerala-688 537.
Presently Residing at:
#304, Sri.Rajarajeshwari Residency, Behind Royal Enfield Showroom, 17th Cross, Rajarajeshwari Nagara, Begaluru-560 098. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Harish N.R., Advocate) AND:
1. The Chairman, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
2. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Bengaluru, No.65, St. Mark’s Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Deputy General Manager, And Circle Development Officer, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Bengaluru, No.65, St.Mark’s Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
4. The Assistant General Manager HR, State of Bank of India, Local head office Bengaluru, No.65, St.Mark’s Road, Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondents (By Sri. T.P.Muthanna, Advocate) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the approved inter- circle-transfer list for the year 2019-2020 vide Annexure-M to the WP, and direct the respondents to grant inter-circle- transfer to the petitioner on spouse ground as per the guidelines issued by the Government of India in the Office Memorandum dated:30.09.2009 vide Annexure-H.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is working as Branch manager in State Bank of India (‘for short, ‘SBI’). He is presently posted in Bengaluru. In the year 2018, he was working in Yadgir District. Petitioner’s wife works in Postal Department as Sorting Assistant and she is presently posted in Ernakulam.
2. While petitioner was working in Yadgir during 2016, he submitted a request for transfer to Ernakulam. The same was not considered. Feeling aggrieved, he filed W.P.No. 17435/2018 seeking a direction to consider his representation made to SBI. This Court by order dated 10.10.2018 directed the respondents to consider petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders. After disposal of the writ petition, SBI has passed a ‘speaking order’ on 28.11.2018 stating, inter-alia, that there are prior registered applications on similar grounds as that of petitioner and therefore petitioner’s case could not be considered. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri Harish N.R., learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has been discriminated. While his representation was under consideration by the SBI, petitioner’s wife has prematurely delivered a baby and she requires his assistance in Ernakulam. Accordingly, he prays for quashing Annexure-L, the ‘speaking order’ passed by the SBI and to reconsider his request in compliance with the directions issued in W.P.No.17435/2018.
4. Sri T.P.Muthanna, learned advocate for the SBI submitted that SBI follows a uniform policy while considering representations seeking transfer. Petitioner’s case falls on ‘spouse ground’. Overall ranking of petitioner’s application is 3812 out of 8684 applications. The ranking on ‘spouse ground’ is 259 out of 1080 applications. Therefore, petitioner’s case did not merit consideration.
5. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused the records.
6. In the impugned order Annexure-L, the SBI has given cogent reasons. SBI is a Bank with large number of work force. As could be seen from the order, as many as 8684 applications were received by the management seeking transfer. No malafides are alleged against any official for overlooking petitioner’s case. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the ‘speaking order’.
7. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the directions of this Court in W.P.No.17435/2019, SBI may be directed to consider petitioner’s case in the next year, namely 2019-2020. He further submitted that petitioner has already submitted online application for this year.
8. Admittedly, petitioner has already registered his request online. The respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law keeping in view the earlier directions issued by this Court.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-