Judgment ( 1. ) Petitioner "All India State Bank of Indore Officers Co-ordination Committee" has field this writ petition to assail the validity of order dated February 13, 2010 (Annexure P-2) to the petition, whereby certain officers of the State Bank of Indore have been transferred. ( 2. ) According to petitioner. It was a registered Officers Association of the respondent-Bank for the last 28 years and was also affiliated to All India Bank Officers Association, the proposed intervenor. The Association was de-recognized on December 31, 2009 and its erstwhile office bearers were transferred by the order impugned. According to the petitioner the said transfer order was tainted with malice because it has been issued in the wake of de-recognition. It is pertinent to point out that de-recognition has been challenged in a separate writ petition registered as writ petition No. 959/2010. ( 3. ) After service of notice respondent has filed the reply to support the order impugned. In the reply, respondent has taken two grounds in support of the Impugned order, one is that the officers have been transferred because they are no longer office-bearers; secondly that the transfer is in the exigencies of the service. In this connection respondent has referred to the Service Regulation Nos. 42 and 43 of the State Bank of Indore Officers Service Regulation, 1979, which as under: "42. Every officer is for to any officer or Branch of the Bank on to any place in India. 43. Every officer shall be available for bank duty at any time for the day." ( 4. ) Respondent has specifically denied in the reply that the transfer order is an outcome of malice. He further objection that the writ petition by the Association is not maintainable because the transfer order, if at all, a personal cause of action to the affected officer who can come to the Court in his individual capacity to seek redress. ) Respondent has specifically denied in the reply that the transfer order is an outcome of malice. He further objection that the writ petition by the Association is not maintainable because the transfer order, if at all, a personal cause of action to the affected officer who can come to the Court in his individual capacity to seek redress. It has also been submitted by the respondent that the reliance placed by the petitioner-Association on annexure P-I-the transfer policy for supervising staff is mis-placed in as much as it does not give any statutory or indefeasible right to any member of the staff to avoid the transfer, order: In other words, the member of staff cannot dictate terms to the management as to how, when, where and for what duration he should be allowed to remain posted at a particular place, office or, Branch of and in of this reliance has placed on various decisions rendered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, starting from Union of India v. Abbas AIR 1993 SC 2444 : (1993) 4 SCC 357 : 1993-II-LLJ-626. ( 5. ) Learned counsel appearing for the respondent also opposed the submission of Shri Bagadiya on LA. No. 1085 of 2010 and submitted that there is no propriety or justification to hear this writ petition along with writ petition No. 959/2010 as the controversy involved in this writ petition is altogether different and has no bearing over controversy involved in the said writ petition. We find force, in the submissions of Shri Garg, learned senior counsel for the respondent and, therefore, reject L.A.No. 1085/2010. ( 6. ) After hearing rival submissions at length and on going through the material available on record, we are satisfied that order Impugned has been issued in the exigencies of the service and the officers affected by transfer order at serial Nos. 1, 6 and 9 stood relieved on February 13, 2010 after the dose of business hours. It is well settled that a transfer is a normal incident of service and where the officers mentioned at serial Nos. 1,6 and 9, are holding high position in the hierarchy of the management of the Bank, they know it very well that they are liable to be transferred anywhere In terms of Regulations No., 42 as quoted herein above,. Merely because they were office bearer of the petitioner-Association would not immune them from transfer. 1,6 and 9, are holding high position in the hierarchy of the management of the Bank, they know it very well that they are liable to be transferred anywhere In terms of Regulations No., 42 as quoted herein above,. Merely because they were office bearer of the petitioner-Association would not immune them from transfer. The guidelines issued by the management as contained in annexure P-1 do not confer upon them legally enforceable right and it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Abbas (supra) that order of transfer made without knowing guidelines cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of statutory provision. Same view has been reiterated in latest unreported decision of Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others (supra). ( 7. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that guidelines as contained in annexure P-1 has any statutory force or confers any enforceable legal right as to the affected persons or the petitioner-Association to assail the impugned transfer order. ( 8. ) Except for making bald assertion that the transfer order is the outcome of malice, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the transfer order was passed with malice to wreak vengeance. In this regard it is apposite to quote what their Lordships have observed in State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Jaiswal and Others AIR 1987 SC 251 : (1986) 4 SCC 566 : "It is true that in the writ petitions the petitioners used words such as ma/a fide, corruption and corrupt practice but the use of such words is not enough. What is necessary is to give full particulars of such allegations and to set out the material facts specifying the particular person against whom such allegations are made so that he may have an opportunity of controverting such allegations." ( 9. ) In the present case no particulars have been set out against any particular person alleging the plea of mala fide or malice. ) In the present case no particulars have been set out against any particular person alleging the plea of mala fide or malice. Thus the requirement of law is not satisfied in so far as all pleadings in the case in hand are concerned and in the absence of necessary particulars and material facts it is difficult for us to come to a finding that the respondent acted with mala fide while issuing the order impugned. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the writ petition. ( 10. ) This leaves us to deal with application L.A. No. 1227/2010 for intervention filed by All India Bank Officers Association through its Dy. General Secretary Dhanendra Kumar Pauddar. It has been stated in the application that the proposed intervention is interested only in Shri Suresh Upadhyay and Shri Alok Khare, as they happened to be the office bearer of the proposed intervenor Association and their transfer at this juncture would affect the activities of the Association. It has also been stated that the transfer order of Mr. Alok Khare and Mr. Suresh Upadhyay is liable to be struck down being contrary to the policy. We have already dealt with these objections while deciding the writ petition that merely being office bearer does not give immunity to an officer from his transfer issued in the exigencies of service. Respondent was fully justified in transferring Mr. Alok Khare and Mr. Suresh Upadhyay because of exigencies of the service as pointed in the reply, which is not seriously disputed by the petitioner Association in the rejoinder and transfer of an officer bearer can be effected in view of the decision of Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others v. Pramod Kr. Mohanty and Others, as has been referred above. Therefore, we find no merit and substance in the application for intervention. In the result, applications I.A. No. 1086/2010 and LA. No. 1227/2010 and writ petition stand dismissed. However, there shall be nor order as to cost. Ordered Accordingly.