JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - The petitioner, an Assistant (A & C) of the State Bank of India (for short, 'SBI'), Cuttack Main Branch, in this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash the order of his transfer made by the Deputy General Manager (C.B.), opp. party No. 1 and to allow him to continue in his present place of posting. 2. Brief facts : The Deputy General Manager (C.B.), opp. party No. 1 issued guidelines vide letter No. PER (CB) 2/298 dated 14.3.1997, Annexure-1 indicating the details of procedure for appointment of computer operators as well as subsequent inter-network transfers. As provided in Clause 4 of Annexure-1, net inflow and outflow of employees to/from the network should be balanced by an equal number of transfers by identifying the employees on the basis of seniormost among the willing employees and (or) otherwise the juniormost employees of the branch in that order. It is manifest that the aforesaid guideline is prescribed with a view to accommodate the computer operators at the centres of the SBI, Cuttack and Bhubaneswar. Ten numbers of computer operators joined at SBI Main Branch, Cuttack and outside branches and therefore, 10 numbers of employees working in that branch were to be transferred as per the aforesaid guideline. Out of 140 employees, the petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No. 107. In order to balance the number of employees working in the branch, opp. party No. 1 vide order dated 3 1.7.1997, Annexure-3 transferred 11 numbers of employees from Cuttack Branch to other branches. The petitioner is neither a senior employee, his name being at Sl. No. 107, nor is he the juniormost employee, 33 employees being below him as borne out from the list, Annexure-2. When it is clearly provided under Clause 4 of Annexure-1 that the net inflow and outflow of employees to/from the network would be balanced by an equal number of transfers by identifying the employees on the basis of (i) seniormost among the willing employees and (ii) otherwise juniormost employees of that branch on that order, surprisingly while making transfer, no option or willingness was called for from the seniormost employees of the branch. Instead, the authorities effected transfers from amongst the juniormost employees. This action of opp. party No. 1, it is asserted, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Clause 4 of Annexure-1. Instead, the authorities effected transfers from amongst the juniormost employees. This action of opp. party No. 1, it is asserted, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Clause 4 of Annexure-1. The petitioner further contends that there are some employees junior to him and are working in the very same branch, but they have not been disturbed. Moreover, when 10 numbers of computer operators have been appointed at the SBI Main Branch, Cuttack, equal number of employees were to be transferred. But opp. party No. 1 with mala fide intention and without assigning any reason effected transfer of 11 number of employees including the petitioner. It is urged that the action of opp. party No. 1 in transferring the petitioner being in violation of Clause 4 of Annexure-1 and actuated by mala fides, to undo the wrong, the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should quash the transfer order by issuing appropriate writ/order. 3. Opp. parties in their counter affidavit have denied the allegations made against them. They have disputed the correctness of seniority list filed by the petitioner at Annexure-2. According to them, the correct seniority list is Annexure-B/2 which indicates that the petitioner's name is at Serial No. 115 from the top and Serial No. 26 from the bottom. It is asserted that 10 computer operators have come on transfer to the SBI Main Branch, Cuttack, and have been working in different sections and in their places 10 Assistants (A.C.) have been transferred to different branches. Such transfers were made keeping in mind the guidelines issued from time to time. Elaborating the procedure adopted in the matter of transfer they would contend that in order to maintain the balance of the employees working in the main branch, juniormost Assistants (A.C.) were selected and transferred to different branches excluding sports personnel and specialised category of Assistants, inasmuch as Assistants at Serial Nos. 119, 127 to 133 and 135 being the sportsmen and serial Nos. 125 and 126 being under the specialised category, were not disturbed from the main branch. A junior Assistant in Serial No. 118 was not disturbed since, according to the opp. parties, he being a promotee from messenger to Assistant (A.C.) is an inexperienced hand and unable to manage in a small branch. 125 and 126 being under the specialised category, were not disturbed from the main branch. A junior Assistant in Serial No. 118 was not disturbed since, according to the opp. parties, he being a promotee from messenger to Assistant (A.C.) is an inexperienced hand and unable to manage in a small branch. Since a few number of staff work in small branches, it is necessary to have Assistant (A.C.) who can perform both cash and accounts work as and when necessity arises. Therefore, 11 juniormost Assistants as per Annexure-3 were transferred to different branches in order to accommodate the computer operators in the SBI Main Branch, Cuttack, and this transfer being in terms of the guidelines (Annexure-1) the petitioner has no cause of action to file the present writ petition. As regards the petitioner's assertion that seniormost amongst the willing employees were not considered for transfer, opp. parties would contend that no senior Assistant expressed hip willingness to go on transfer and so, transfer was made from amongst the juniormost employees. In the premises, it is urged that the writ petition being thoroughly misconceived should be rejected in limine. 4. The petitioner in his rejoinder contended, inter alia, that the ground taken by the opp. parties in not transferring the Assistant at Serial No. 118 who is junior to him is untenable, the reason being that in all the branches, whether big or small, a Cashier is required for day to day transaction. As regards the reason for not bringing the sports personnel within the fold of transfer, asserted by the opp. parties, the petitioner would urge that sports personnel are also working in small branches, like Cuttack Town, Pithapur, Jhanjir Mangala, S.C.B. Medical College Branches, besides the Main Branch. It is further stated that the demand of the SBI Staff Association not to transfer the sports personnel from SBI. Main Branch, Cuttack, was considered and accepted as one-time request with the observation that it would not be a precedent for future transfers under the policy as per the note of the Deputy General Manager in Annexure-7. In that view of the matter exclusion of the sports personnel from the purview of transfer on the basis of the communication of the Assistant General Manager, Annexure-C/2 cannot over-ride the decision of the Central Office under Annexure-7. 5. In that view of the matter exclusion of the sports personnel from the purview of transfer on the basis of the communication of the Assistant General Manager, Annexure-C/2 cannot over-ride the decision of the Central Office under Annexure-7. 5. We have patiently heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and have perused the pleadings and relevant documents. Admittedly Annexure-1 prescribes guideline to be followed in the matter of transfer. It is provided therein that in order to effect inter- network transfers, net inflow and outflow of employees should be balanced by equal number of transfers on the basis of seniormost amongst the willing employees or otherwise juniormost employees of the branch. Admittedly in the present case willingness of the seniormost employees was not obtained. Juniormost employees were transferred and while doing so, sports personnel as well as one Assistant who is junior to the petitioner were not disturbed. This being the admitted factual position, question arises whether petitioner's prayer should be accepted and the order of his transfer should be quashed. It is the settled law that in administrative affairs in the matter of transfer of public servants, the Court should be loathe to exercise writ jurisdiction. The Apex Court has time and again observed that transfer of a public servant being an incidence of service should not be interfered with by the Court unless it is shown to be arbitrary or in violation of the mandatory statutory rules or is actuated by mala fides. (See N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, ; Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa and Others, ; and 1998 (1) SC 474 : State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Saxena and Anr.). 6. In the present case it is not established by the petitioner that his transfer from Main Branch of SBI, Cuttack, is arbitrary or suffers from mala fides. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere or intrude upon the administrative function of the authorities of the Bank in the matter of transfer. But then we do not approve the action of the opp. parties in not bringing the sports personnel and another Assistant junior to the petitioner within the fold of transfer. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere or intrude upon the administrative function of the authorities of the Bank in the matter of transfer. But then we do not approve the action of the opp. parties in not bringing the sports personnel and another Assistant junior to the petitioner within the fold of transfer. We find from Annexure-7 that the authorities agreed to one time request of the SBI Staff Association not to transfer the sports personnel indicating that it would not be a precedent for future transfer. In the premises sports personnel who are junior to the petitioner should have been brought within the fold of transfer, particularly when it is the specific case of the petitioner that sports personnel are also working in smaller branches within the town of Cuttack. The stand taken by the opp. parties that the junior Assistant at Serial No. 118 being an inexperienced hand would not be able to manage the small branch for which he was retained in the main branch is absurd and untenable. Considering his efficiency when the authorities promoted him to the cadre of Assistant from subordinate cadre, there was no justifiable reason not to bring him within the fold of transfer. 7. In view of discussions made above, while not interfering with the impugned order of transfer, we would observe that the opp. parties being model employer would consider the case of the petitioner afresh keeping in mind the guideline at Annexure-7 regarding transfer of sports personnel and observation made by us in this judgment, and pass appropriate order within three months hence. P.C. Naik, J. 8. While agreeing with my learned brother R.K. Dash. J. I would add that the Bank authorities should consider framing of a transfer policy which should be rational and not one-sided. From the facts on record, it appears that transfer under the present policy depends on the willingness of senior employees, for, if they refuse to go on transfer, the juniormost employee from the bottom of the list is to be transferred. In the case at hand, according to the opp. parties, the petitioner was transferred from the Main Branch to Nayabazar Branch because "no senior expressed willingness to go on transfer and, therefore, the Bank transferred the juniormost from the bottom of the list". In the case at hand, according to the opp. parties, the petitioner was transferred from the Main Branch to Nayabazar Branch because "no senior expressed willingness to go on transfer and, therefore, the Bank transferred the juniormost from the bottom of the list". The list (Annexure-2) indicates that there are many employees who, right from the date of their appointment in the service of the Bank, are continuing in the same Branch. Hence, if they being seniors every time express their unwillingness for transfer, naturally those, who have joined the Branch at a later date, will always have to be shunted out. 9. The petitioner has gone to Nayabazar Branch on transfer. Supposing an occasion arises for re-adjustment and re-deployment of staff because of computerisation of the said Branch and to his bad luck, he is the juniormost there. In such an event, he would, under the policy, face another transfer because his seniors express their unwillingness and this situation may go on from Branch to Branch, as it cannot be denied that presently computerisation is becoming necessary. Thus, in this way, though some may permanently remain at a particular Branch being seniors, some will have to be constantly on the move being juniors. This, I feel, would not be fair and, therefore, it would be advisable if the Bank considers evolving/framing a policy which would uniformly apply to all employees and not benefit some at the cost of others. Thus, in the circumstances, it will but be fair for the Bank authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner.