N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) IT is well established principle of law that courts shall not interfere with the orders pertaining to transfers of officials or officers unless it is shown that the transfers made are with mala fide intentions, as such transfers are administrative in nature and any such interference with the administrative orders of transfer would create confusion in the matters of administration. Unmindful of the above position the petitioners who are officers of the respondent/vijaya bank have filed these petitions challenging the latest policy of the bank issued as at Annexure 'f' dated 24-12-1991 which is a circular relating to revised transfer policy for officer-employees upto mmg. Scale in of the bank and para 11. 4 reads as follows;" the central officer bearers of the registered trade union of officer employees recognised by the bank will be placed in the centre where the head office of the bank is situated and they are exempted from transfers during their tenure as such. Further, exemption is limited to only 6 such central office bearers and available so long as the recognition granted by the bank is in force. "pursuant to Annexure 'f' respondent bank made transfer orders as at annexures 'g' and 'h' dated 16-3-1992 and 13-4-1992 respectively whereby petitioners 3 to 5 came to be transferred, in that 3rd petitioner working at udupi has been transferred to Delhi , 4th petitioner working in Bangalore has been transferred to ahmedabad and the 5th petitioner working in Bangalore has been transferred to Delhi. The 2nd petitioner has joined his friends petitioners 3 to 5 as he is secretary of the vijaya bank officers congress (regd.), to espouse the cause of other office bearers of the first union. ( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that all the petitioners viz. , petitioners 2 to 4 are the officebearers of the 1st petitioner's congress. The 2nd petitioner is the general secretary, petitioners 3 and 4 are the organising secretaries of the above congress. Respondent vijaya bank has got 3 unions. Respondent vijaya bank is a nationalised one. Thus, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India it is an instrumentality of the state. The respondent bank has its head office in Bangalore and branches all over india. It is submitted that said bank has strength of nearly 25,000 officials and four thousand officers. The bank has three unions viz. Respondent vijaya bank is a nationalised one. Thus, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India it is an instrumentality of the state. The respondent bank has its head office in Bangalore and branches all over india. It is submitted that said bank has strength of nearly 25,000 officials and four thousand officers. The bank has three unions viz. , (1) all India vijaya bank officers' association, which has the strength of 61. 08% of the total number of officer employees (hereinafter referred to as 'association'), (2) vijaya bank officers' union which has the strength of 17. 75% (hereinafter referred to as 'union') and (3) vijaya bank officers' congress (regd.) (hereinafter referred to as 'congress') which has the strength of 15. 84%. The first union has been treated as a recognised union. All the three unions have their head offices in Bangalore. Petitioners 2 to 5 are the office bearers of 3rd union which is the petitioner No. 1. The conditions which were prevailing regarding transfers of either officials or office bearers were as per annexures 'd' and 'e'. The relevant portion is of Annexure 'd' is extranted hereunder:"a personnel sub-committee of the council of executives has been created to meet every saturday to go into all urgent and important personnel matters that are pending in the bank and also to have a dialogue across the table with the leading representatives of the various unions. A policy decision has been taken that five leading office-bearers of each of the unions having all-india status will be posted at the bank's headquarters so as to be easily accessible for such dialogues from time to time. Neverthless, the unions continue to press their charters of demands on the administration, and in particular their demand for the reinstatement of their erstwhile active members and/or their postings at the station of their choice. This the management cannot agree to, as each one of such cases has to be dealt with on its own merits by the concerned authorities in accordance with the established procedures of the bank. "at Annexure 'e' dated 19-5-1981 held that the policy evolved at Annexure 'd' has been discontinued with immediate effect as while reviewing the policy it was felt that continuance of such a policy would result in serious administrative inconvenience to the bank and opined that transfers already made would stand. "at Annexure 'e' dated 19-5-1981 held that the policy evolved at Annexure 'd' has been discontinued with immediate effect as while reviewing the policy it was felt that continuance of such a policy would result in serious administrative inconvenience to the bank and opined that transfers already made would stand. In view of withdrawing of policy evolved at Annexure 'd' a new policy of transfer known as revised transfer policy came to be evolved and published in the form of a circular as at Annexure 'f'. The relevant portion reads as follows:" keeping in view the magnitude of the problem as explained above, it became imperative to review the existing transfer policy and to evolve a revised comprehensive transfer policy. Accordingly, a revised comprehensive transfer policy for office employees up to mmg scale-ill has been evolved after discussions with the all India vijaya bank officers' association, taking into consideration the changed circumstances, present and future business needs of the bank and also the aspirations of officer employees. The revised transfer policy for officer employees upto mmg scale-ill which comes into force with immediate effect is enclosed as Annexure 'a'. The objectives and guidelines of transfer and other guidelines to effect transfer are given at Annexure 'f' which are extracted hereunder: " the main objective of periodical rotation of officers is to match the business requirement of the bank and human resources development. However the problems of relocation incidental to mobility will also be taken into consideration with human relations approach. " ( 3 ) 0. 0. Definitions:for the purpose of this policy, unless there is anything repugnant to the subject or context. 3. 1. 0. Transfer:"transfer" means movement from once centre to another. 3. 2. 0. Posting: "posting" means movement from one branch/office/department to another branch/office/department within the same centre. 3. 5. 0. Tenure: "tenure" means active service in a) north-3 years b) north eastern region-2 years c) disturbed areas-2 years d) hardship branches-2 years e) inter-state-4 years at paragraph 4. 0. 0 norms for transfers are prescribe which read as follows: "4. 0. 0. Norms for transfers: subject to Regulation 47 of the vijaya bank (officers') service regulations, 1982, the following norms are prescribed which reads as follows: "transferability" ( 4 ) EVERY officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or toany place in india. 4. 0. 0. 0. 0. Norms for transfers: subject to Regulation 47 of the vijaya bank (officers') service regulations, 1982, the following norms are prescribed which reads as follows: "transferability" ( 4 ) EVERY officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or toany place in india. 4. 0. 0. Norms for transfers: subject to Regulation 47 of the vijaya bank (officers') regulations, 1982, the following norms are laid down: 4. 1. 0. Periodicity: generally officers are liable for transfer/posting only after completion of one tenure. However, this time limit one tenure does not apply in the case ofa) transfer/posting on promotion b) south to north transfer and inter-state transfer c) rural/semi-urban posting d) extreme compassionate grounds e) administrative exigencies. further no officer shall be retained in same branch/office beyond five years hi the case of branch manager and six years in the case of others and in the same centre beyond 10 years for all officers. South to north: every officer belonging to south has to serve in the branches/offices located in north atleast one tenure continuously during his/her entire period of service in the bank as an officer save officers temporarily exempted during the period of such exemption. The service rendered hi the above said branches/offices in clerical/sub-staff cadre shall not be taken into account. 4. 2. 1. Normally vacancies in north will be filled by posting/transfer of officers in the following order:i) directly recruited officers through bsrb. Ii) officers who have not completed their north tenure. Iii) officers promoted from clerical cadre i. e. , on promotion from clerical cadre they will be transferred directly to north during general transfers. Iv) officers on promotion to mmg scale-ill irrespective of the fact whether they have already completed north or not and officers on promotion to mmg scale-ii who have completed north tenure of less than 5 years or north eastern region/disturbed areas tenure of less than 3 years. However, those officers who have completed more than 5 years in north or more than 3 years in north eastern region/disturbed areas are required to serve one tenure continuously in one of the branches/offices located in south other than his/her home state on promotion provided he/she has not completed inter-state tenure earlier. However, those officers who have completed more than 5 years in north or more than 3 years in north eastern region/disturbed areas are required to serve one tenure continuously in one of the branches/offices located in south other than his/her home state on promotion provided he/she has not completed inter-state tenure earlier. Note: in the case of officers in jmg scale I and mmg scale ii who are presently serving in north or north eastern region/disturbed areas, if they get promoted to mmg scale ii or mmg scale iii while serving in north or north eastern region/disturbed areas, they are required to continue their stay in north/north eastern region/disturbed areas until completion ol'5/3 years as the case may be. 4. 3. 0. North to south: 4. 3. 1. Officers belonging to south who are working in north are eligible to be transferred back to south to completion of their north tenure. 4. 3. 2. Officers who opt for extending their period of stay beyond one tenure upto 5 years in north or 3 years in north easter region/disturbed areas will not be required to serve in north again even on promotion to higher scale. 4. 4. 0. Inter-state (south) 4. 4. 1. Every officer belonging to south is required to serve at least one tenure continuously as officer in one of the branches/offices located in south other than his/her home state in the following order: a) officers in jmg scale I who have completed more than 5 years in north are required to serve one tenure continuously in one of the branches/offices located in south other than his/her home state on promotion to mmg scale ii provided he/she has not completed inter-state tenure eariier. B) every officer belonging to south who has not completed atleast one tenure continuously as officer in one of the branches/offices located in south other than his/her home slate depending upon the requirements of the bank in different grades/scale in addition to north tenure based on his/her seniority of stay in the home state. However those officers in jmg scale I who have completed 7 years or more in north are exempted from inter-stale tenure. 4. 5. 0. However those officers in jmg scale I who have completed 7 years or more in north are exempted from inter-stale tenure. 4. 5. 0. Inter-state (north): every officer belonging to north is required to serve one tenure as an officer in one of the branches/offices located in north other than his/her home state depending upon the requirement of the bank besides one tenure on promotion and one additional tenure if need be. However such additional tenure need be served only after completion of five years or more than in the home state. 4. 6. 0. Pre-retirement transfer: every officer who has only five years or less period of service left before superannuation may request for transfer as preparatory to retirement. As far as possible such cases may be considered to their place of choice on the basis of age subject to availability of vacancy i. e,, the order in age will be given preference. 4. 7. 0. Exercising option: officers eligible for transfer to south from north and those officers who are eligible for transfer to home state under inter-state transfer are entitled to exercise their option in favour of any four divisions in the order of preference if the number of divisions in their home state is four or more and where the number of divisions in the home state is less than four, then option may be restricted to the number of divisions in the home state. 4. 8. 0. Rural/semi urban branch service: 4. 8. 1. Notwithstanding the norms for transfer laid down in the foregoing paragraphs, the bank shall have the right to transfer an officer to any rural/semi-urban branch either as a post-promotion condition or otherwise for completing the requisite period of such service for promotion on the basis of seniority as per govt. Guidelines issued from time to time in this regard. Further such transfers shall have overriding effect or precedence. 4. 8. 2. Officers who have completed the requisite rural/semi-urban branch service as the case may be are liable to be transferred out of such branches so as to provide opportunities to other officers to complete the requisite rural/semi-urban branch service. 4. 9. 0. Cut-off age: normally officers who have completed 48 years of age are not liable for transfer to north. However, officers who have completed 48 years of age but not completed 52 years of age are liable for inter-state transfer. 4. 9. 0. Cut-off age: normally officers who have completed 48 years of age are not liable for transfer to north. However, officers who have completed 48 years of age but not completed 52 years of age are liable for inter-state transfer. 4. 10. 0 cut-off date: the cut-off date relieving/reporting upon transfer shall be as determined by the bank from time to time. For the year 1992, the officers transferred from north to south shouldbe relieved in between 7th and 12th may and should report for duty on or before 23rd may. In the case of officers transferred from south to north, they should be relieved in between 14th and 19th may and should report on or before 30th may. 4. 11. 0. Temporary exemptions: 4. 11. 1. Active sports persons: officers who are members of bank's sports team or representing the bank at state/national/international level are temporarily exempted from south to north. Inter-state and outside the centre transfers so long as they are categorised as active sports persons by the sports committee of the bank. Further the sports officers of thebank and the officer designated as coach by the sports committee of the bank are also eligible for such temporary exemption. This temporary exemption is not available to those officers who have been decategorised by the sports committee of the bank. Such lists of officers eligible for temporary exemption shall be prepared by the sports committee in consultation with the personnel dept. , every year and the same shall be made available to the personnel department before effecting general transfers. 4. 11. 2. Physically handicapped person: such of those officers who are recruited under physically handicapped category or those who have been categorised as such by the bank from time to time are temporarily exempted from south to north and inter-state transfers. However they are liable for transfer within the state. The bank shall before granting temporary exemption take into account nature and extent of disability of the officer with due regard to incapacity of the officer to move out of the present place of posting or centre. Such list shall be prepared by personnel department in consultation with bank's doctor. 4. 11. 3. The bank shall before granting temporary exemption take into account nature and extent of disability of the officer with due regard to incapacity of the officer to move out of the present place of posting or centre. Such list shall be prepared by personnel department in consultation with bank's doctor. 4. 11. 3. Extreme medical grounds: such of those officers who have been declared by the panel/board of doctors appointed by the bank as sick and require to be retained in the present place of posting shall be temporarily exempted from transfers. However if the nature of sickness does not call for retention in the present place of posting the bank may transfer them in accordance with the transfer policy to a place where the necessary medical facilities are available. All such cases shall be reviewed every year before effecting the annual general transfers. 4. 11. 4. Office bearers of recognised registered trade union of officer employees the central office bearers of the registered trade union of officer employees recognised by the bank will be placed in the centre where the head office of the bank is situated and they are exempted from transfers during their tenure as such. Further, this exemption is limited to only 6 such central office bearers and available so long as the recognition granted by the bank is in force. 4. 12. 0. Request transfers/postings: 4. 12. 1. Request transfers will be considered subject to administrative convenience/exigencies of service provided the officer has completed a minimum period of 3 years active service in the present posting. However, on extreme medical/compassionate grounds, transfer may be considered before completion of one tenure at the direction of the bank. 4. 12. 2. Request for change of postings within the same centre may be considered only after completion of 3 years active service in the present posting. 4. 12. 3. Request for transfer ofextreme compassionate grounds will be considered solely at the discretion of the bank and such transfer will be for a limited period of 3 years only and thereafter the officer shall be transferred on reviewing the case. 4. 12. 4. All the request for transfer will be considered only two times in one's entire career in the bank as officer. 4. 12. 4. All the request for transfer will be considered only two times in one's entire career in the bank as officer. " pursuant to Annexure 'f' respondent bank made transfer orders as at annexures 'g' and 'h' dated 16-3-1992 and 13-4-1992 respectively, whereby petitioners 3 to 5 came to be transferred. The 3rd petitioner working at udupi of Karnataka has been transferred to Delhi , the 4th petitioner working in bangalore has been transferred to ahmedabad and the 5th petitioner working in Bangalore has been transferred to Delhi. 3. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners viz. , petitioners 2 to 4 are the office bearers of the first petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is the general secretary. Petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are the organising secretaries and the 5th petitioner is a treasurer, they were so elected in the election that was held on 14-11-1990 as at Annexure 'b'. 4. It is their case that their union has been affiliated to Indian national trade union congress. According to the petitioners that Annexure 'd' which was the resultant of discussion. that took place between the management and the union, the office bearers were entitled to work at head office, as their presence required always for consultation and discussion in the matter pertaining to the welfare of the officers of the union. It is their further case that in case of office bearers of other two unions the respondent bank did not choose to transfer them on the other hand, they gave effect to the circular dated 4-10-1980 as at Annexure 'd'. Whereas in case of these petitioners they gave effect to the transfer policy evolved at Annexure 'f' and thus transferred petitioners 3 to 5. Thus, the said transfers of the petitioners not only discriminatory but mala fide. It is also their case that the so-called policy evolved at Annexure 'f' does not stand to reason or there is any rational behind it. According to them, the policy decision evolved by issuing a circular at paragraph 4. 11. 4. Of Annexure 'f' is quite arbitrary and has given uncontrolled powers to the management, to pick and choose the officials and to post to whatever place the management likes. According to them, the policy decision evolved by issuing a circular at paragraph 4. 11. 4. Of Annexure 'f' is quite arbitrary and has given uncontrolled powers to the management, to pick and choose the officials and to post to whatever place the management likes. The policy evolved at Annexure 'f' is arbitrary as it is not made binding on staff members of other unions as Annexure 'f' has been evolved after consulting with the office bearers of the first union i. e. , all India vijaya bank officers' association alone. The present transfer orders are made not only with a mala fide intention but with an vindictive attitude to harass these petitioners as these petitioners had opposed the continuance of the then chairman of the bank. No reasons are assigned as to why the earlier policy at Annexure 'd' was discontinued. This shows that respondent-bank is not discharging the functions properly. Even though it is an instrumentality of the state the bank is conducting itself in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. It is also contended that though annexures 'g' and 'h' relate to transfer of staff shown therein, but the same came to be modified yielding to pressure of the office bearers of the concerned union. But the same concession has not been shown in case of these petitioners. To substantiate the same, to-day an affidavit has been filed declaring that modification of transfer of one k. Balakrishna shetty, the general secretary of 2nd union who was transferred from kamataka to north subsequently retained in Bangalore and in fact at no time he served outside karnataka. ( 5 ) FOR these reasons they have sought for the relief mentioned in the writpetitions. ( 6 ) IN support of above contentions Sri H. S. Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the approach of the respondent bank in attempting to transfer these petitioners leaving others undisturbed who are similarly placed is not only discreminatory one but made with a mala fide intention. For example, in case of one balakrishna shetty, general secretary of 2nd union though he was transferred, later, on his request he has been retained in Bangalore. But in the case of petitioners 3 to 5 though such request was made but the same has not been considered. It shows apart from discrimination the vindictive attitude on the part of the chairman towards the petitioners. But in the case of petitioners 3 to 5 though such request was made but the same has not been considered. It shows apart from discrimination the vindictive attitude on the part of the chairman towards the petitioners. No doubt, at annexures 'g' and 'h' transfers were made both inside and outside the state of Karnataka but, the same came to be modified at least in the case of 220 officers, without assigning reasons that why all of a sudden such modification necessitated and such modification not applied in case of petitioners. The so-called policy evolved at Annexure 'f' neither stands to reason nor it has got the nexus to achieve the object. Further the object itself is not spelled out properly. When the idea behind in retaining the office bearers of the union in Bangalore is to see that they represent the cause of officers of their union and thus strive for their welfare, then the petitioners being 4 leading officers of the congress also entitled to be retained in Bangalore till their term comes to an end. Since the said transfers of the petitioners have been made ignoring the said policy the same are illegal and runs contrary to the banking policy. The present transfers of the petitioners apart form being vindictive they indirectly curbs the union's activities thus depriving the petitioners' congress to carry on its activities to ventilate the grievance of the workmen in a democratic manner. ( 7 ) SRI H. S. Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, also contended than eventhough transfer is an incidence of service and an employer has always authority to transfer employees but such transfers shall be made always in the public interest or in the cause of the institution but not according to his or its whims and fancies. If guidelines are there or policy is evolved though the same has no statutory force but in order to see that there shall be smooth functioning of the institution and the staff shall not be demoralised and education of the staff's children not to be hampered there shall not be frequent transfers. The authorities who exercise powers of transfer, shall exercise such powers discompassionately and not with vindictive attitude. The authorities who exercise powers of transfer, shall exercise such powers discompassionately and not with vindictive attitude. ( 8 ) TO support his contention Sri Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, placedreliance on a decision of this court in the case of H. Krishna and others v State of Mysore and others, reported in 1973 (2) mys. Lj. 271 wherein this court did not accept the policy evolved by the government that teachers shall be transferred to far off places. Further disapproving the policy of the government not to retain the primary school teacher in the home taluk while striking down such a policy as unconstitutional, the court held as follows:" 5. Clause (3) of the impugned order and other portions of clauses (4) and (5) of the order which are in the nature of corollaries to clause (3), which I have adverted to above, are impugned by the petitioners on the ground that the same are violativc of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 14 of the constitution. The case of the petitioners is that even if the primary school teachers may be regarded as a well defined class different and distinct from other government servants, there is no justification for treating the primary school teachers for special treatment by clause (3) of the impugned order in the matter of transfer. That the state government has power to issue instructions regulating transfer of its government servants cannot be disputed. It cannot also be disputed that the state government can, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the constitution, prescribe the conditions for transfer as well as the procedure for effecting such transfers. It cannot also be disputed that this court cannot go into the question of the propriety of an order of transfer made by the state government or its officers in a given case. But if the state government issues a general order as it has done in these cases laying down the conditions and the procedure for transfer of primary school teachers and a complaint is made that the action taken by the state government amounts to hostile discrimination against the petitioners, the court has necessarily to examine as to whether the classification made by the state government is justified on the basis of well-known principles. In order to meet the attack of the petitioners that the impugned order violates Article 14 of the Constitution the stale has necessarily to establish that it has made a reasonable classification and that the classification so made has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is no doubt true that the court has to bear in mind that there is an initial presumption in regard to the constitutional validity of the impugned order. 6. As already mentioned, the principal contention of the petitioners is that though the primary school teachers can be regarded as a clear and distinct class from other government servants of the state, the classification made for the purpose of impugned order has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the order. Generally stated, the object of the order of transfer must be regarded as being 'public interest'. The petitioners have asserted that whereas there is no directive issued by the state government that other government servants should not be posted to their home taluks, it is only the primary school teachers that have been picked and chosen for such hostile treatment by the state and for which there is no justification whatsoever. The order itself does not give any reasons as to why this class of government servants has been picked and chosen for imposition of a ban as contained in clause (3) of the impugned order against the primary school teachers being posted in their home taluks. There is no apparent reason which can easily be discerned. The state government which has filed this couter affidavit, though it has given the background for the passing of the impugned Order, has not stated any reason as to why it became necessary to impose a ban against transfer to the home taluks only in respect of one class of government servants viz. , the primary school teachers. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, this is what is stated: "notwithstanding the above orders and instructions, government found that their home towns or places or taluks and the competent officers had not strictly carried outthe instructions issued thereto by the government. In addition to the above there were general complaints of favouritism and victimisation in the matter of transfer against competent authorities. In addition to the above there were general complaints of favouritism and victimisation in the matter of transfer against competent authorities. To obviate this kind of complaint, the government thought it is necessary to have a rational and consistent policy in the matter of transfers of primary school teachers and therefore the impugned government order was issued. " the reference in the aforesaid portion of the counter affidavit to the earlier order of the state government is to the order dated 13th august, 1970 by which the state government directed that so far as the primary school teachers are concerned, they should not be posted to their home taluks. That the ban contained in the order of 13th august, 1970 is similar to the ban contained in clause (3) of the impugned order does not afford any justification. If clause (3) of the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the constitution, it follows that the earlier direction issued by the state government on 13th august, 1970 also suffers from similar infirmity. Therefore than an order similar to clause (3) of the impugned order was not given effect to by the subordinate officers or that there was favouritism or victimisation in enforcing that order can hardly be regarded as affording justification for the impugned order. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the state does not therefore give any reason for justifying a special treatment so far as the primary school teachers are concerned by the imposition of the ban contained in clause (3) of the impugned order. If orders of transfers are required to be made in public interest, public interest would necessarily require similar treatment being meted out to other government servants of the state. There is no peculiarity or special reason pleaded or proved justifying the imposition of a ban as contained in clause (3) of the impugned order read along with its corollaries in clauses (4) and (5) of the said order. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that there is no nexus between the obj ect sought to be achieved and the classification sought to be made by the impugned order. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that there is no nexus between the obj ect sought to be achieved and the classification sought to be made by the impugned order. "for the proposition that the frequent transfers will definitely affect the efficiency in the administration and hampers education of the staff's children, Sri Jois, placed reliance on a decision of the division bench of Bombay high court between sesharao nagaorao umap and state of maharashtra and others, reported in 1985 (2) LLJ 73 wherein it is said that the government is always bound by its policy decision to enforce strictly, however, the discretion that is available to the authority to give effect to transfers, powers exercised must be honest, bona fide and reasonable. Again, the state has to follow the relevant principles applicable, as applying to others similarly situated and it must not be for mala fide, extraneous or irrelevant consideration as otherwise that would amount at denial of equality of opportunity. By placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of E. P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 , Sri Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that any arbitrariness in the acts of authorities or if any action or order of the state or an authority is mala fide the same deserves to be held as illegal. According to him, the Present Action of the respondent-management in transferring the petitioners is against the principles laid down in royappa's case particularly to the observations made at paragraphs 86, 87, 90, 91 and 92. ( 9 ) BY so contending, he argued that from the circumstances explained that theconclusion to be drawn is that the present transfers are clear case of resultant of mala fides and quite discriminatory and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of india. According to him, relevant portion in royappa's case is as follows:"where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional laiv and is therefore violative of Article 14 and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State Action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State Action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require the State Action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State Action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice: in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by articles 14 and 16. "for the reasons given above Sri Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the transfer of the petitioners not in the public interest on the ground the same is arbitrary, discriminatory and resultant of mala fides as such the transfer orders be quashed. Further annexures 'f', 'g' and 'h' be declared as illegal and unconstitutional. ( 10 ) AS an answer to these contentions Sri B. C. Prabhakar, learned counsel forrespondent bank argued that the claim of the petitioners as baseless on the following grounds: 1) the policy evolved at Annexure 'f' is most reasonable and made in the interest of the institution. Earlier to passing of Annexure 'f' the policy of transfers of officers of an union was as mentioned at Annexure 'd'. However, by review it was felt that the same deserves to be withdrawn and as such it came to be. withdrawn atannexure 'e' which reads as follows: vuaya bank head office 2, residency road, Bangalore 560025 per: 5807/1981 may 19, 1981 chairman's special circular No. 4 of 1981 transfer of office bearers of unions recently, a policy decision to the effect that five leading office bearers of each of the unions having all-india status will be posted at the bank's headquarters was communicated to the branches/offices through custodian's special circular No. 3/1980, dated 4-10-1980. The aforesaid policy has since been reviewed and it is felt that the continuance of such a policy will result in serious administrative inconvenience to the bank. The aforesaid policy has since been reviewed and it is felt that the continuance of such a policy will result in serious administrative inconvenience to the bank. It has, therefore, been decided to discontinue the policy with immediate effect the postings already made in accordance with the custodian's circular referred to above will, however, stand. " , accordingly Annexure 'f' the present policy relating to transfer has been evolved. In the scheme criteria has been clearly made out. 2) he submitted that respondent bank has got its branches through out india. Most of its officers are transferred from Karnataka to north to see that the branches started in north India are also properly manned by posting experienced officers trained in Bangalore. One of the policies is that each officer during his tenure of office shall work at least once outside Karnataka viz. , in north india. As such the present transfers of the petitioners are to effect to such a policy. 3) he submitted that the contention raised by other side that transfer of the petitioners is quite discriminatory in that the petitioners being leading office bearers of an union have been transferred, but retained office bearers of another union is baseless. 4) further office bearers of other two unions viz. , the president and general secretary of those two unions were transferred but later retained as per the norms fixed in the transfer policy at Annexure 'f'. Sri Balakrishna Shetty, the general secretary of the union was transferred to north india. But, on his request his transfer has been kept in abeyance till the end of December 1992. Moreover, it is not shown that the petitioners congress is a recognised one. The membership of the petitioners congress is hardly 16%. As such there was no necessity for the bank to consult the petitioners congress and then to evolve a transfer policy. 5) according to Sri Prabhakar, the guidelines and circumstances of transfers have been clearly explained at Annexure 'f' which are extracted above. The transfer of petitioners is made by an authority who has a competency and that too in the public interest as such it cannot be said that it is either discriminatory or mala fide in nature. 5) according to Sri Prabhakar, the guidelines and circumstances of transfers have been clearly explained at Annexure 'f' which are extracted above. The transfer of petitioners is made by an authority who has a competency and that too in the public interest as such it cannot be said that it is either discriminatory or mala fide in nature. 6) no doubt, general transfers given effect to at annexures 'g' and 'h' subsequently modified in the case of 109 persons on their request that too they were transferred from one zone to another of south India but not retained in Bangalore or in the state of karnataka. 7) according to him the contention that when above three persons have been retained in Bangalore as such these petitioners also to be retained in Bangalore has no substance for the reason that in case of Sri M. B. Rajanikant he has to be retained in Bangalore as he is the committee member of SC and ST and his presence is required before the parliamentary committee. In case of Sri B. K. Rai who was transferred from halebadnur of Karnataka to kachiwadi of north India has to be retained in Bangalore as he lost his wife and he was the only member to take care of his children. In the case of karunakaran, he was retained for the reason that even though he was transferred from Bangalore to Delhi , but modified and posted to Calcutta as his wife is employed and working in calcutta. 8) moreover, the transfers of the petitioners made neither in the middle nor end of the year but made during the proper period, i. e. , during the period of general transfers. ( 11 ) THE conditions as per Regulation 47 of the vijaya bank officers' serviceregulations, 1982, are as follows:"trans ferability. 47. Every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the bank or to any place in india. "thus all the officers arc liable to be transferred anywhere within any place in india. Merely because, the petitioners are the office bearers of the congress they cannot assert that they shall continue in Bangalore till their tenure, as office bearers and their item comes to an end. "thus all the officers arc liable to be transferred anywhere within any place in india. Merely because, the petitioners are the office bearers of the congress they cannot assert that they shall continue in Bangalore till their tenure, as office bearers and their item comes to an end. ( 12 ) SRI B. C. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the bank argued that the posts ofofficers of the bank are transferable and the transfers have been made keeping in mind the scheme and other regulations which deal about transfers and as such the transfers arc in the public interest. ( 13 ) AS mentioned earlier one of the service conditions of an employer or officerof the bank is that one shall work at least for one tenure in the north as these petitioners have been serving in the bank for more than 15 to 20 years and had not served in north. During general transfers they were transferred to north. ( 14 ) RETAINING of office bearers of other unions only for a temporary period inbangalore cannot be said that the management has acted with a mala fide intention to liquidate the first petitioners union. ( 15 ) THE transfer is one of incidence of service. ( 16 ) THE petitioners have attacked the then chairman of the bank by making wildallegations as if to make one to believe that the transfers of these petitioners are made at the instance of the chairman. But in the absence of the chairman as a party to the proceedings no such allegations be made. ( 17 ) IT is also not open for the petitioners congress to urge to equate the petitionerswith office bearers of recognised unions. ( 18 ) ANY modifications in the transfer orders made at annexures 'g' and 'h' arccither adjustment within the zone or different zone in north India or any other change from north zone to another north zone. Retention of a few in Bangalore or in other parts of Karnataka concerned, he same is mainly on the representations and taking into consideration the hardship pleaded by them and not otherwise. ( 19 ) SRI Prabhakar, submitted that in view of the reasons given above it is notproper to contend that the transfer of the petitioners is quite discriminatory, arbitrary and made with a main fide intention. ( 19 ) SRI Prabhakar, submitted that in view of the reasons given above it is notproper to contend that the transfer of the petitioners is quite discriminatory, arbitrary and made with a main fide intention. Also contended that the policy at Annexure 'f' a policy well thought of one. Since mala fides or discrimination not established and frequent charges not pleaded Sri Prabhakar, submitted that writ petitions deserve to be rejected. ( 20 ) IN support of his contention Sri B. C. Prabhakar, learned counsel for therespondent bank relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in varadha rao's case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955 . The paragraph 4 of the said judgment reads as follows:" 4. The learned judges observe that these penalties can be imposed on a government servant where disciplinary proceedings are initiated against him under the rules by the competent authority. They further observe that Rule 18 of the rues therefore provides for appeals against orders imposing penalties referred to and specified in Rule 8, and add: " if an order of transfer does not amount to an order of penalty or any other order falling within Rule 19, such an order does not attract and is not appealable either under Rule 18 or Rule 19. "we agree with the view expressed by the learned judges that transfer is always understood and construed as an incident of service. The words 'or other conditions of service' in juxtaposition to the preceding words 'denies or varies to his disadvantage his pay, allowances, pension' in Rule 19 (l) (a) must be construed ejusdem generis. Any alteration in the conditions of service must result in prejudice to the government servant, and some disadvantage touching his pay, allowances, pension, seniority, promotion, leave etc. It is well understood that transfer of a government servant who is appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to another is an ordinary incident of service and therefore does not result in any alteration of any of the conditions of service to his disadvantage. That a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferrable post. That a government servant is liable to be transferred to a similar post in the same cadre is a normal feature and incident of government service and no government servant can claim to remain in a particular place or in a particular post unless, of course, his appointment itself is to a specified, non-transferrable post. As the learned judges rightly observe:" the norms enunciated by government for the guidance of its officers in the matter of regulating transfers are more in the nature of guidelines to the officers who order transfers in the exigencies of administration than vesting of any immunity from transfer in the government servants. "according to him, the transfers have been made purely in the interest of the institution. There cannot be any interference by the court in transfers as held by the division bench of this court in the case of Syndicate Bank v Sunder k. Paniyadi and another, reported in 1991 (1) kar. L. j. 30 wherein it is held as follows:" transfer is a necessary concomitant of every service. Therefore, if the administrative exigencies warrant a transfer, the high court cannot, as though exercising supervisory jurisdiction over the employer-bank, say how it should manage its affairs. It is entirely the look-out of the employer-bank. The mere fact that the writ petitioners were subjected to three transfers or it had come to be passed in the middle of the year will be of no consequence whatever in examining the validity of the transfer, nor again, the so-called policy which is adumbrated in a circular could ever be enforced by the high court these circulars are intended only for the internal guidance the breach of which will not give rise to any cause of action in favour of the writ petitioners. The order of transfer, made in pursuance of general toning up of the administration, cannot be said to be mala fide"since the order of transfer is one of incidence of service any interference will hamper the efficiency of administration and will result in violation of right conferred on an authority to transfer. For this proposition he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of mrs. Shilpi base and others v state of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . For this proposition he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of mrs. Shilpi base and others v state of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . The relevant portion reads as follows:" if the competent authority issued transfer orders with a view to accommodate a public servant to avoid hardship, the same cannot and should not be interfered by the court merely because the transfer order were passed on the request of the employees concerned. The respondents have continued to be posted at their respective places for the last several years, they have no vested right to remain posted at one place. Since they hold transferable posts they are liable to be transferred from one place to the other. The transfer orders had been issued by the competent authority which did not violate any mandatory Rule, therefore the high court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the transfer orders. 4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a transfer order which are made hi public interest and for administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in violation or any statutory Rule or on the ground of mala fide. A government servant holding a transfeirable post has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other, he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other. Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer orders is passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead affected party should approach the higher authorities in the department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-day transfer orders issued by the government and its subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the administration which would not be conducive to public interest. The high court over looked these aspects in interfering with the transfer orders. " for the above reasons Sri Prabhakar, submitted that the writ petitions be dismissed. ( 21 ) FROM the above discussion the following points emerge for considerations: (1) whether transfer can be challenged contending policy of transfer is not reasonable? (2) whether orders of transfer of the petitioners are arbitrary or discriminatory or mala fide! ( 22 ) THE petitioners have not denied that the authority who made transfers is notcompetent. ( 21 ) FROM the above discussion the following points emerge for considerations: (1) whether transfer can be challenged contending policy of transfer is not reasonable? (2) whether orders of transfer of the petitioners are arbitrary or discriminatory or mala fide! ( 22 ) THE petitioners have not denied that the authority who made transfers is notcompetent. It is not their case that when once they have been appointed or promoted they are not liable to be transferred from one place to another. It is also not their case that an officer working in the state of Karnataka as per the policy is liable to be transferred outside Karnataka viz. , to work in north India for one term. But their only grievance is that as they being office bearers of the first petitioner's congress in fairness they should not have been transferred so long as they hold their office as did in the case of others. ( 23 ) THE transfer is an incidence of service, this power is an inherent to anemployer. Transfer cannot be assailed in the absence of rules or the same made not in the public interest but made for extraneous consideration or made with a mala fide intention to victimise an employee or such a transfer has resulted in reverting an employee. This position has been clearly explained by the Supreme Court in the case of B. Varadha rao v State of Karnataka and others, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955 , referred to earlier. While explaining the scope of guidelines in the matter of transfers the Supreme Court extracted the observations of this court made in varadharao's case. The division bench of this court in the case of Syndicate bank v Sunder k. Paniyadia and another, took almost the similar view in the matter of transfer which is also referred to earlier in the writ petitions. ( 24 ) A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of mrs. Shlpibose and others v State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . ( 25 ) FROM the above position it is clear that normally the courts will not interferein orders of transfer which arc transferrable. ( 24 ) A similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of mrs. Shlpibose and others v State of Bihar and others, reported in AIR 1991 SC 532 . ( 25 ) FROM the above position it is clear that normally the courts will not interferein orders of transfer which arc transferrable. It can interfere only when the transfer orders are made by an authority who has no competency or the motive is to victimise the employee or made with a mala fide intention. Thus, first point held that transfer orders cannot be challenged unless the same are illegal, without an authority of law or mala fide or made for extraneous considerations. ( 26 ) THE question now to be considered is whether the present transfers arearbitrary or have been made with a mala fide intention. In order to know whether the authority passed the same with a mala fide intention or not, one must verify the circumstances under which an authority has passed the transfer orders and also the intention. In the instant case transfer was given effect to pursuant to the policy laid down at Annexure 'f' which policy was made after consulting the recognised union. When once such a policy has been accepted it is not open for them to say that the same is not binding, merely because, the rival union not participated. The policy decision has been taken on the consent given by the union representing more than 61% of the staff. It is true that if transfer is made not in the public interest but made with a motive to appoint another official to the said post then the court can definitely interfere. The proving of mala fides lies upon the person alleges it. Because it is very easy to allege mala fides but difficult to prove the same as held by the Supreme Court in the case of E. P. Royappa v State of Tamilnadu, reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 . The relevant portion reads thus:"where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. The relevant portion reads thus:"where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State Action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State Action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State Action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by articles 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice; in fact the latter comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by articles 14 and 16. "likewise, earlier to royappa's case the Supreme Court in the case of Barium chemicals ltd, and another v Company law board and others reported in AIR 1967 SC 295 , while dealing with the question relating to transfer of an employee from the law board took the similar view. ( 27 ) NOW, it is also not shown the authority who made transfers had no authorityor while effecting transfers had any dishonest intention or transfers made with a view to victimise the petitioners as held by the Supreme Court in the case of the Management of the Syndicate bank ltd. V Workmen, reported in AIR 1966 SC 246. ( 28 ) FROM the information furnished by the bank it is clear that there is neitherarbitrariness nor authorities have violated the regulations in order to transfer these petitioners. The transfer of these petitioners have been made in the public interest as they had not worked in north india. The petitioners' congress is not a recognised one. Sri Balakrislma Shetty office bearer of another union has been retained only for a temporary period till the end of December 1992 that too on his request and not otherwise. The transfer of these petitioners have been made in the public interest as they had not worked in north india. The petitioners' congress is not a recognised one. Sri Balakrislma Shetty office bearer of another union has been retained only for a temporary period till the end of December 1992 that too on his request and not otherwise. ( 29 ) THE policy that the leading office bearers of the union shall be retained in headquarters has been given effect to by retaining the leading office bearers of the recognised union. If any modification in the transfer orders have been made the same purely on humanitarian grounds that too for a temporary period by way of adjustments. ( 30 ) FROM the above it is clear that the petitioners have approached this court only with a view to continue in Bangalore. ( 31 ) AFTER perusing the records and also the authorities relied upon by both sides. I am of the opinion that none of the contentions of Sri Subramanya Jois, learned counsel for the petitioners has any merit. The appointment of these petitioners were made by respondent bank who is an authorily as such the terms of appointment and other conditions are subject to service regulations including the policy evolved after bilateral discussion that took place between the employer and the recognised union. Hence, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they are not liable to be transferred on the ground that they arc also office bearers of the congress. If the contention of the petitioners that no office bearer of an union is liable to be transferred is accepted then it is impossible for the management to transfer any officer outside karnataka. Because a few officers themselves forming an union can say that they have been elected as office bearers and thus seek for their retention. Transfer is an incidence of service as per the transfer policy that each officer shall serve once in their period of service outside the state of karnataka, as such the transfers of the petitioners cannot be held as bad or illegal. ( 32 ) IT cannot be said that the management has followed discriminatory attitude in picking up only these petitioners to transfer them from Karnataka to outside and leaving others. Good number of officers have been transferred from Karnataka to serve in north india. ( 32 ) IT cannot be said that the management has followed discriminatory attitude in picking up only these petitioners to transfer them from Karnataka to outside and leaving others. Good number of officers have been transferred from Karnataka to serve in north india. Out of them a few had to be adjusted and 3 or 4 had to be retained either on humanitarian grounds or for temporary period on their request so also in the case of Sri Balakrishna Shetty. His transfer has been kept in abeyance till the end of December 1992. The management has also not violated any of the service regulations or the guidelines fixed, to say that transferor the petitioners are arbitrary. 34. It is true as held by the Bombay high court in the case of seshrao nagaorao umap that frequent transfers will definitely demoralise the employees and affect the efficiency of the administration apart from hampering the education of the staff's children. But, here transfers not of frequent one. In order to decide whether transfers made with a mala fide intention or arbitrary or discriminatory various factors have to be taken into consideration and then to form an opinion whether the transfer has been made with any dishonest intention or in the public interest. In matters relating to transfer it is very difficult to understand the mind of an officer as to why he has made an order of transfer. Regarding the authorities relied upon by Sri Subramanya Jois, viz,, a decision taken by this court in the case of H. Krishna and others v State of Mysore and others reported in 1973 (2) mys. L. j. 271 wherein this court struck down the Rule made by the government and held that:" (3) teachers who are working in their home taluks should be transferred out of their home taluks in a phased programme. In the beginning those who have stayed for more than ten years or more be transferred. Such transfers should not exceed ten per cent of the total number of teachers in the taluk. " in my opinion, on facts the above decision has no application. Because that was a case where frequent transfers held as resultant of arbitrariness and mala fides. Such transfers should not exceed ten per cent of the total number of teachers in the taluk. " in my opinion, on facts the above decision has no application. Because that was a case where frequent transfers held as resultant of arbitrariness and mala fides. In view of the observations made above it has to be said that the petitioners have not made out a case that the policy evolved at Annexure 'f' is quite arbitrary, unconstitutional and transfer of the petitioners discriminatory or resultant of mala fides. As such petitions have to be dismissed. ( 33 ) THUS point No. 2 also not established. No doubt, when there is any order of transfer definitely it will be painful to an employee. In the instant case, the petitioners have been transferred during general transfers. If these petitioners had really any problem they should have immediately appealed to the higher authorities explaining the difficulties to leave the head-quarters for some time and if such request was made I think the authorities would have considered the same. Even now, instead of contending that the transfers of the petitioners arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and resultant of mala fides, it is proper for the petitioners to make a representation to the authorities concerned for their retention at least for reasonable time in Bangalore and if such a request is made it is hoped that the authorities will consider the case of those who have not yet reported outside, for their retention till the end of may 1993. ( 34 ) SINCE this court cannot interfere in matters of transfer of the petitioners all that I can now say is to conclude this order by extracting the observations made in Gujarat Electricity Board and another v Atmaram Sungomal poshani reported in AIR 1989 SC 1433 . " whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer Order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules. "in view of the above observations all these petitions are dismissed. No costs. ( 35 ) IN order to facilitate the petitioners to make representation to the higher authorities of the bank this order is stayed for 15 days as earlier the petitioners had benefit of stay. --- *** --- .