B. P. BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the order dated 31st August 1992 passed by the learned Trial Judge in C. O. No. 16228 (W) of 1991. A writ application was filed challenging the order of transfer transferring the appellant-petitioner to the North Eastern Zone by the order dt. 19th August, 1991, while he was posted at Debipur, Burdwan in the State of West Bengal. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a member of Scheduled Caste and joined the service under UCO Bank as a clerk and subsequently on promotions selected in the post of officer Grade D now known as officer scale no. 1 ; The appellant claims to be the President of the Bengal Provincial Depressed classes League (UCO Bank Unit) (hereinafter referred to as the "league") and alleged that the said transfer from Calcutta to North Eastern Zone will seriously affect the interest of the scheduled castes employees of the said Bank. It was further alleged that the petitioner made a representation as the president of the said League to the Parliamentary committee on the Welfare of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes whereupon an enquiry was held into the activities of the said Bank relating to irregularities in filing up the vacancies which were kept reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the service of the Bank. According to the appellant this had caused annoyance to the authorities concerned who had passed order of transfer. The validity and/or illegality of the said order of transfer was challenged in the writ application, inter alia, on the grounds (a) that there was discrimination in the matter of transfer inasmuch as several other officers who are allowed to stay 10 years or more in Calcutta had not been transferred, where as the appellant was singled out for discriminatory treatment, (b) the order of transfer was made in violation of the transfer policy of the Bank wherein it is provided that, "the placement and movement of persons will have to be made after due consideration of all aspects and if any, exceptions are required to be made for any justifiable reasons, the same has to be done for which reasons to be recorded. We are keen that the Transfer policy should lead to growth of the individual and Bank. We are keen that the Transfer policy should lead to growth of the individual and Bank. " And as far as possible, officers in Scale II and Scale III will be posted in their Home States (i. e. state of domical ). If however, there is excess of officers in a state they would, as far as possible, be transferred to the neighbouring states. " (c) There are two other leaders of scheduled castes Union, namely Sri B. C. Poddar and Mr. G. K. Mondal, who were not transferred in view of the production guaranteed to the union officials in terms of the guidelines for transfer of the officers dt. 01. 08. 1984 and that even though the appellant was similarly situated to that of Mr. B. C. Poddar and Mr. G. K. Mondal such transfer not only amounts to discrimination but also amounts to depriving the appellant from performing his trade union activities for the welfare of SC/st employees of the said Bank and (d) lastly the appellant was transferred in place of I. N. Mallick, an officer of the Bank who was to come back from that North Eastern Zone and that for accommodating the said Sri I. N. Mallick, the appellant was transferred allegedly with the interest of the Bank which was contrary to facts and the same was mala fide. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of the matter found that the appellant could not make out a case of any discrimination or that the order was mala fide or suffers from any illegality necessitating any interference by this court and accordingly, dismissed the writ application. ( 3 ) MR. Kashi Kanta Moitra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order of transfer in the facts and circumstances of the case amounts to interfering with the trade union activities of the appellant who claimed to be the President of the said League and that if the appellant is posted at North Eastern Zone in that event, the appellant would not protect the interest of the members of the said union. Secondly, it was submitted that the said order of transfer was based, as matter of fact, on retaliation of lodging a complaint before the Parliamentary committee against the Bank for which the said committee caused an enquiry. Secondly, it was submitted that the said order of transfer was based, as matter of fact, on retaliation of lodging a complaint before the Parliamentary committee against the Bank for which the said committee caused an enquiry. Thirdly, it was submitted that the order of transfer could not be made in violation of the transfer policy and/or guidelines made in this behalf which are binding upon the Bank. Lastly, it was submitted that several outer officers similarly situated had not been transferred out of Calcutta even though they are posted in Calcutta for more than 10 years and where as the appellant has been singled out from Calcutta Zone to North Eastern Zone which, according to the appellant, was arbitrary and discriminatory. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondents-Bank it was submitted by the learned Advocate that the order of transfer passed strictly in accordance with the transfer policy and/or guidelines laid down by the Bank in this behalf. It was submitted that prior to the present posting at Debipur, Burdwan the appellant was posted in Calcutta for about 10 years and at Debipur he was posted for about 4 years. It was further submitted on behalf of the respondents Bank that in tire year 1987 the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Orissa but the said order of transfer was challenged or withdrawn by the Bank on compassionable ground since the appellant's mother was suffering from Cancer and the appellant was posted at Debipur Branch. On 6. 2. 88 in Burdwan which is in close proximity of his residence for attending to the requirement of his ailing mother and that Sri B. C. Poddar and Sri G. K. Mondal represent majority of the SC/st employees and that accordingly, they were treated as exempted category as contained in the guidelines dt. 1. 8. 84. In the said guidelines dt. 1. 8. 84" office Bearers of the AIUCEOF, AIUCBOA and NFUCBU, viz. the President, General Secretary, Organising Secretary, and Treasurer, during their terms of office. "falls to be exempted from inter state transfer [7 (c) of the guidelines for the transfer and placement of officers" dt. 1. 8. 84] and that the respondent Bank do not admit that the appellant was the President of any Trade Union. the President, General Secretary, Organising Secretary, and Treasurer, during their terms of office. "falls to be exempted from inter state transfer [7 (c) of the guidelines for the transfer and placement of officers" dt. 1. 8. 84] and that the respondent Bank do not admit that the appellant was the President of any Trade Union. On the contrary, it was submitted that the Association which is allegedly represented by the appellant was Bengal Provincial Depressed Classes League (UCO Bank ). It was specifically alleged that the said League is not a trade union or a union of the officers of the said Bank. ( 5 ) IT was submitted that tire said League represents a small fraction of the employees of the said Bank where as the union or organisation represented by Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal represents tire majority of the SC/st employees of the said Bank. In this connection it was pointed out that for the last few years, the management has held meeting for discussing regarding the interest of the employees in which Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal attended to the represent SC/st employees of the said Organisation. It was further denied by the respondent Bank that the appellant is President of Ali India UCO Bank SC/st employees League and that the said League had never been invited in recent past since the said League is a minority SC/st Association having a very few members on or around Calcutta and that they have no members outside Calcutta and/or West Bengal. This fact was sought to be disputed on behalf of the appellant. ( 6 ) REGULATION 47 of UCO Bank (Officer's) service Regulation, 1979 provides "every officer is liable to transfer to any office, or branch of the Bank or to any place of India. " The transfer policy on which such reliance was placed also provides that "his place of posting before the expiry of three years from the date of his posting, except in difficult centres, where the stay will not be more than two years. Subject to the exigencies of Administration, no officer will be retained in the same branch/office for a period on excess of 3-5 years. By difficult centres it is meant such centres as may be determined by the Bank after determining the criteria therefore. Subject to the exigencies of Administration, no officer will be retained in the same branch/office for a period on excess of 3-5 years. By difficult centres it is meant such centres as may be determined by the Bank after determining the criteria therefore. " And that for North Eastern Zone the period of stay is ordinarily two years and that it is also evident that the appellant has been transferred to that Zone in place of I. N. Mallick who is to come back to this Zone after completing two years' period and that accordingly, it does not appear that only for accommodating I. N. Mallick, appellant has been transferred. It was a gross transfer. Mr. Mallick has been brought from that zone as he has completed two years' period of service there. Accordingly, in this court it cannot be alleged that there was any irregularity committed by the Bank. The transfer is an express condition of service and that the transfer is made not under any rule having a statutory force. It is well settled principle that unless it could be established that an order of transfer is in the face of it mala fide and was pot in the interest of the administration and/or if is violative of any of the rules of transfer or the like, the validity of the order of transfer could not be challenged on any other grounds. An employees in this respect is required to act fairly. The guidelines for transfer and placement of officers dt. 1. 8. 84 had been provided in protection of the Union allegedly represented by the appellant. It is true that tile union represented by Mr. Poddar and Mr. Mondal is not also mentioned in that guidelines for any protection. Of course, it is not for us to make any comment about transfer policy. When under die statutory rules an officer is transferred in that event merely on tile ground that an employee happens to be a union leader could not be transferred would be contrary to tile interest of an organisation. Union leader cannot claim any preferential treatment and/or any immunity from transfer when transfer is a condition of service and in this regard a discrimination could not be made between an employee who is not a union leader and an employee who is a union leader. Union leader cannot claim any preferential treatment and/or any immunity from transfer when transfer is a condition of service and in this regard a discrimination could not be made between an employee who is not a union leader and an employee who is a union leader. Under our Constitution an employee has trade union right subject to conditions and restrictions. The trade union activities are not to be performed during the office hours inasmuch as an employee is paid by public excheque for his official duty and not for his trade union activities. Trade Union activities are to be performed beyond office hour. In the matter of laying down the principles and guidelines for transfer the authorities concerned cannot lay down any rule which is contrary to the statutory rules. In the instant case, the Bank has denied and disputed that the appellant happens to be the President UCO Bank SC/ ST council as alleged or at all. The appellant has completed about 14 years of service or around Calcutta and accordingly, tire appellant cannot claim any protection against the transfer from one Zone to mother. Sri Poddar and Sri Mondal the Principal officer Bearers of UCO Bank SC/st employees council were not transferred since they were treated as exempted category and that on the basis of the materials placed before us a case, a case of discrimination could not be made by transferring tire appellant and not transferring tire said Mr. Poddar and Sri Mondal. Further with regard to several other officers whose names have bean disclosed were not transferred even though they were in the present Zone for more than 10 years. In order to make out a case for discrimination, the onus is heavily upon the appellant. The Supreme Court in the case of Katra Education Society v. State of U. P. AIR 1966 SC 1307 held that "a plea of unlawful discrimination cannot be adjudged unless petitioner contains full averments on tire ground on which equality is claimed and the denial of equality is pleaded as not based on rational relation to tire object sought to be achieved by actions which makes a classification. " On the basis of the pleading it appears that Mr. Poddar and Mr. Mondal who were Secretary and President respectively of UCO Bank SC/st council which represent the majority members of tire reserved community and brat Mr. Poddar and Mr. " On the basis of the pleading it appears that Mr. Poddar and Mr. Mondal who were Secretary and President respectively of UCO Bank SC/st council which represent the majority members of tire reserved community and brat Mr. Poddar and Mr. Mondal cannot be treated as similarly situated to that of the appellant-writ petitioner. With regard to other officers mentioned in the petition it cannot be said that any discrimination had resulted in transferring tire appellant. The transfer is a policy matter of the Bank and brat in the facts and circumstances of tire case we do not find my reason to interfere with the order of transfer of tire appellant and we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Judge dt. 31st March, 1992 and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with any order as to costs. The appellant is given liberty to join the new place of posting within a period of 15 days from today, if not, already joined in accordance with the order of transfer and in case the appellant joined in the new place of posting in terms of this order in that event, no action should be taken against the appellant for not complying with the order of transfer. Appeal dismissed.