Gauhati High Court - Kohima
Shri Dutta Debopriyo vs The General Manager on 10 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC020008402025 2026:GAU-NL:215
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/237/2025
SHRI DUTTA DEBOPRIYO
S/O SHRI LT. DEBABRATA DUTTA
R/O H/NO.09
SINALI SARANI
KAMRUP (M)-781005
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE GENERAL MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA AND 6 ORS
HRM DEPARTMENT
HEAD OFFICE
BARODA BHAWAN
7TH FLOOR
R.C. DUTTA ROAD
VADODARA-390007 GUJARAT
2:THE GENERAL MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA
ZONAL HEAD
NORTH EASTERN ZONE
GUWAHATI-781005
ASSAM
3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA
REGIONAL HEAD
JORHAT REGION
JORHAT-785004
Page No.# 2/11
ASSAM
4:THE MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA
HRM JORHAT REGION
JORHAT-785004
ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (STRATEGIC HR AND HR OPERATION)
BANK OF BARODA
HEAD OFFICE
BARODA BHAWAN
7TH FLOOR
R.C. DUTTA ROAD
VADODARA-390007
GUJARAT
6:THE AGM AND REGIONAL HEAD
REGIONAL OFFICE
JORHAT-785004
ASSAM
7:THE CHIEF MANAGER
BANK OF BARODA
CIRCULAR ROAD BRANCH
DIMAPUR-797112
NAGALAND
------------
Advocate for : P SURIEN Advocate for : appearing for THE GENERAL MANAGER BANK OF BARODA AND 6 ORS ADVOCATES:
For the petitioner : Mr. P. Surien
For the respondents : Mr. B.P. Borah (Standing Counsel)
Date of Hearing : 10.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 10.04.2026
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R (O R A L)
The instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Page No.# 3/11 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the e-mail Letter dated 15.11.2025, issued by the respondent no. 5/Deputy Manager, Strategic HR & HR Operations, Bank of Baroda; the impugned e-mail Letter dated 15.11.2025, issued by the respondent no. 6/AGM & Regional Head, Regional Office, Jorhat and the impugned Relieving Order dated 15.11.2025, issued by the respondent no. 7/Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dimapur, Nagaland, respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this instant petition is that the petitioner was initially appointed as JM1 in the Bank of Baroda on 11.09.2012 and since then he has been continuously rendering his service to the respondent bank without any break. After about 4 (four) years of service, the petitioner was promoted as MM2 in the respondent bank in the year 2016. The petitioner was promoted again in the year 2021 as MM3 and was posted in Jorhat and thereafter transferred to Dimapur and presently the petitioner is holding the post of Senior Branch Manager, Dimapur VB Branch, Dimapur, Nagaland.
3. While the petitioner was posted in Jorhat, Assam, the petitioner had applied for exemption from Inter Zonal Transfer (IZT for short) in the month of April 2025 through the official portal of the respondent bank on the ground of his wife's advanced stage of pregnancy and accordingly, the respondent bank exempted the petitioner from transfer under the IZT exercises for the year 2025-2026. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Dimapur as Senior Branch Manager, Dimapur VB Branch of the Baroda Bank and accordingly, he joined the new place of posting on 15.07.2025.
Page No.# 4/11
4. At this stage, the respondent no. 5/Deputy Manager, Strategic HR & HR Operations, Bank of Baroda, Head Office on 15.11.2025, sent an e- mail to the respondent no. 3/Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Head, Jorhat Region to transfer the petitioner from Dimapur VB Branch, Nagaland to Rajkot Zone, Gujarat with the request to relieve the petitioner from his present place of posting. Accordingly, the respondent no. 6/AGM & Regional Head, Regional Office, Jorhat, on the same day, i.e., 15.11.2025, sent an e-mail to the respondent no. 7 with the instructions to relieve the petitioner on 15.11.2025 from his present place of posting to join the new place of posting at Rajkot Zone, Gujarat. Thereafter, the respondent no. 7/Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Dimapur, Nagaland issued the impugned Relieving Order No. BOB/VJDIMA/STAFF/2025- 26/144 dated 15.11.2025, whereby the petitioner was relieved from the Dimapur VB Branch, Nagaland with instructions to report to the Zonal Head, Rajkot Zone on the next working day positively.
5. The petitioner tried to address his grievances through the official portal of the respondent bank by making an application against the impugned Relieving Order dated 15.11.2025 issued by the respondent no.
6. However, the said application could not be processed through the official portal of the bank as the bank's portal system disabled him to access the official portal of the bank by locking his identification number. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. Surien. Also heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned standing counsel for the respondents.
Page No.# 5/11
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for exemption for Inter Zonal Transfer (IZT for short) and accordingly the respondent bank had exempted the petitioner from transferring under IZT exercises for the year 2025-2026. Thereafter, it was totally arbitrary and illegal to transfer the petitioner when he was already exempted from transfer under IZT till 2026. Hence the petitioner should not have been transferred to any place under IZT till 2026.
8. The learned counsel further submits that the General Manager, HRM Department, Head Office, Baroda has issued a policy for transfer of the employees/officers of the Bank vide Circular dated 24.04.2025. As per the condition No. 9.0 of the said policy, if any employee or officer is transferred to a 'difficult center', he/she must be transferred for a minimum period of 2 (two) years at such difficult center. According to condition No. 9.1, the entire North Eastern states and Srinagar is identified as difficult centers by the bank. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner should have been retained at Dimapur for at least 2 (two) years. He also submitted that condition 15.0 deals with calendar for IZTs and according to which all the IZT exercises should be completed between 31st May to 30th June every year in order to avoid mid-year transfers. Further, condition 4.0 of the policy deals with tenure of posting on transfer for inter-zone, which says that the tenure of posting of an officer to another zone shall be for a period of 3 (three) years. Therefore, the petitioner could not have been transferred to another zone before the expiry of three years.
9. It is further submitted by the petitioner that as per the condition 14.0 Page No.# 6/11 of the said policy dated 24.04.2025, only the Head of the Zonal Office/HRM could have passed the transfer order and, therefore, the respondent nos. 4, 6 and 7 had no authority to issue the transfer order of the petitioner for IZT.
10. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his transfer/Relieving Order dated 15.11.2025 is mala fide and against the statutory provisions, it is passed by an incompetent authority and has been passed without non-application of mind.
11. Per contra the learned standing counsel for the respondent bank, Mr. B.P. Borah has submitted that before 2023, Kolkata was also in the same zone as the North East. It was only in the year 2023 that the North Eastern States was made a different zone as far as IZT is concerned. It is submitted that the petitioner had remained in the same zone for more than 13 years taking into account his posting at Kolkata and therefore the petitioner is most eligible for transfer under the IZT. The learned counsel has referred to the Proposal dated 15.11.2025 for transfer of the petitioner which is at Annexure-'A' of the affidavit-in-opposition. Learned standing counsel states that this proposal was issued by the competent authority as according to condition 14.1 of the Transfer Policy, dated 24.04.2025, Zonal Head/General Manager, HRM is the authority for considering/deciding transfers or for grant of temporary transfers or for considering requests received from officers. Therefore, as per the condition 14.0, the General Manager, HRM/Head of the Zonal Officer has rightly issued proposal for transfer of the petitioner. It is further submitted Page No.# 7/11 that the Transfer Proposal dated 15.11.2025 which is the basis on which the impugned orders have been issued has not been assailed by the petitioner.
12. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that one Ganesh Chhetri has already been transferred and has joined in the petitioner's place at the Dimapur VB Branch. The Transfer Order dated 18.11.2025 issued in favour of Shri Ganesh Chhetri has not been challenged by the petitioner and moreover, without challenging the said Transfer Order of Shri Ganesh Chhetri, the present petition is not maintainable.
13. Learned standing counsel submits that transfer is an incident of service and the petitioner is required to comply with the impugned Order dated 15.11.2025, which is issued under Regulation 47 of the Bank of Baroda Officers' Service Regulations, 1979 (BOBOSR for short), which states that "Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or to any place in India". Learned standing counsel further submits that as per condition 18.1 of the Transfer Policy dated 24.04.2025, "Notwithstanding anything contained above, the bank reserves the right to transfer any officer to any of its branches/offices at any point of time under Regulation 47 of the BOBOSR, 1979 for meeting any exigencies, administrative requirements, etc.". By virtue of this enabling provision, even though the exemption had been given to the petitioner up to 2026, the respondent authorities had to transfer the petitioner in exigency of service. The proposal for transfer dated 15.11.2025 clearly reflects the administrative exigency under which the Page No.# 8/11 petitioner had to be transferred.
14. In view of the submissions made, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Transfer Order dated 15.11.2025 was issued bona fide and in public interest. It is further stated that the records show that the petitioner has been repeatedly challenging his Transfer Orders since 2023 and has not complied with any IZT. It is reiterated that the petitioner has remained in the same zone for over 13 years and, therefore, he is eligible to be sent on IZT and the proposal for his transfer is a reasoned order, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may not interfere with the Transfer Order dated 15.11.2025.
15. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsels and also perused the pleadings and the records made available before this Court.
16. It is trite law that a writ court can only interfere with a government employee's transfer if it is proved to be mala fide, violates statutory rules, is ordered by an incompetent authority or is arbitrary. Transfer is an incident of service and the transfer and posting of government or bank employees lie in the exclusive administrative domain of the government or the bank concerned and courts cannot interfere with such transfer unless the order is vitiated due to malice or is in violation of statutory provisions. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had been serving in the same zone for 13 years as Kolkata was also in the same zone as the North East states before 2023. As per condition 9.0 of the Transfer Policy of the Page No.# 9/11 Baroda Bank dated 24.04.2025, an employee/officer, if transferred to a difficult center, must be transferred for a minimum period of 2 (two) years. As per condition 9.1, the entire North Eastern states and Srinagar are difficult centers as identified by the bank. The petitioner had, therefore, fulfilled this condition as he has been posted in the North Eastern Region for the last two years. Moreover, condition 4.1 of the Transfer Policy states that the tenure of posting of an officer on IZT to another zone shall be for a period of 3 (three) years. The petitioner has been posted in the same zone for 13 years and, therefore, even as per condition 4.1 of the Transfer Policy the petitioner is due for transfer on IZT. The petitioner has alleged that the Transfer Order was issued by an incompetent authority; however, it is seen from condition 14.1 of the Transfer Policy that the competent authority for considering/deciding transfers is the Head of the zonal office/HRM. A perusal of the transfer proposal dated 15.11.2025 clearly shows that it was the head of the Zonal Office/General Manager HRM who had considered and decided the transfer of the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Zonal Head of the Baroda Bank/General Manager, HRM is incompetent to consider the transfer of the petitioner. Further, this Court finds that the enabling provision at condition 18.1 of the Transfer Policy empowers the respondents to transfer the petitioner to any of its branches/offices at any point of time under Regulation 47 of the BOBOSR, 1979 for meeting any exigency, administrative requirements, etc. Therefore, inspite of the exemption given to the petitioner till 2026, the respondent authorities had every right to transfer the petitioner in view of the enabling provision at condition 18.1 of the Transfer Policy.
Page No.# 10/11
17. In the case of Union of India Vrs S.L Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "who should be transferred where is for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes a representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right"
18. The S.L Abbas case has been followed by several other authorities reiterating the same principles. It is settled law therefore that the writ court cannot issue directions to transfer a particular employee to a particular place nor can the court interfere in the orders of transfer unless it is shown that the orders are vitiated due to malice or the order is in violation of a statutory provision. There is no judicially manageable standard for scrutinizing of transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of the employees. This must be left, in public interest, to the authorities concerned.
19. In the instant case also the transfer policy can only be considered as Page No.# 11/11 a guideline. It does not confer a legally enforceable right upon the employee. Be that as it may this court finds that none of the provisions of the transfer policy has been violated in this case.
20. In the result this Court finds that the petitioner has not made out a case to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant