ORDER : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.11.2011, Annexure P-2, whereby he was relieved to report for duty at his new place of posting, i.e. Panog, Distt. Sirmaur, on 29.11.2011. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerkcum- Cashier, vide appointment letter Annexure P-1, at Paonta Sahib branch of respondent bank. His appointment was inter alia, subject to the following conditions: (c) PERIOD OF PROBATION You shall be on probation for a period of 6 months which period can be extended for a further period of three months if your work and conduct during probation is not considered satisfactory. Your confirmation will also depend upon satisfactory verification of your character and antecedents by the district authorities. In case of unsatisfactory report, your services will be liable to be terminated in terms of paragraph 522 (1) of Sastry Award. (e) TRANSFER You will be liable for transfer to any place in India in connection with Bank's work at the discretion of the Bank. Your application for transfer to a place of your choice will not be entertained by the Bank at least for one year and six months from the date of your joining the service of the Bank. 3. Consequently, he submitted his joining report in Paonta Sahib branch of State Bank of Patiala on 27.10.2011. He, however, was relieved vide Annexure P-2, with the direction to report for duty in Panog branch of the said bank, which is at a distance of 150 kms. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by his posting in Panog branch of the respondent Bank, has filed the present writ petition, on the ground that in the matter of his transfer, he has been given discriminatory treatment, as according to him, out of total 11 employees, 9 of whom are seniors to him and one is junior, working in the Paonta Sahib branch of the respondent bank, neither any senior nor junior has been chosen for such posting at Panog, whereas only he has been chosen to be posted there, in order to make place for some other person. In support of such contentions in the writ petition, the alleged transfer policies, Annexures P-3 and P-4, applicable to the persons similarly situated to him and working in the respondent bank, have been pressed into service. In support of such contentions in the writ petition, the alleged transfer policies, Annexures P-3 and P-4, applicable to the persons similarly situated to him and working in the respondent bank, have been pressed into service. It has further been submitted that the transfer policy, which provide for two years tenure of an official in big branch, has not been taken into consideration. 4. Respondents, in reply to the writ petition, have submitted by way of preliminary submissions that the petition is not maintainable, because in the appointment letter, one of the conditions of his appointment is that he can be transferred to any place in connection with the affairs of the respondent bank and he has to join his duties at such place. As per another condition, he is not entitled to make any request in the matter of his transfer, within six months from the date of his appointment. There are no allegations of any harm or hardship likely to be caused to him by his posting in Panog branch. It has also been submitted that he has been transferred to Panog branch of the respondent bank, keeping in view the shortage of staff there. In this behalf, it is submitted that against sanctioned strength of two posts at Panog branch, only one official is in position, whereas the second post is lying vacant. Though he was relieved, however, he has not yet submitted his joining report at Panog branch. 5. It has further been submitted that in Paonta Sahib branch of the respondent bank, two persons, i.e. one Ms. Sonia Arora and the petitioner, were initially allocated on their appointment as Clerk-cum-Cashier. One more person, namely Jaiveer Singh, having 90% blindness, was adjusted in Paonta Sahib branch of the respondent bank, after appointment of petitioner and Ms. Sonia Arora aforesaid, being physically handicapped person. Since Panog branch of the respondent bank was understaffed and as one more official in the rank of the petitioner was to be deployed, therefore, keeping in view the fact that out of three newly appointed Clerk-cum-Cashiers, including the petitioner deployed there, one being lady and the other being a physically handicapped person, it was deemed proper not to transfer them, but to transfer the petitioner. 6. 6. It has further been pointed out that Annexures P-3 and P-4, being incomplete, nor disclose as to under what provisions the same have been issued, cannot be treated as transfer policies. Above all, 5 years transfer policy is not applicable to an employee who is still on probation and rather applicable to those centers where more than one branch of the bank is functioning and it has confirmed clerical staff, which has completed 5 years of stay in such branch. It has further been submitted that otherwise also, order Annexure P-2 which has been issued only for administrative reasons, could not have been assailed in this writ petition. The statements Annexures R-3 and R-4, with respect to the staffing pattern in Paonta Sahib and Panog branches of the respondent bank, have been pressed into service. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder, reiterating his case as set out in the writ petition during the course of the day today. 8. On being directed by this Court, respondent bank has also placed on record a statement, indicating therein vacancy position of Clerks in some other branches situated within District Sirmaur. 9. I have heard the learned counsel on both sides and also gone through the record. 10. The present is a case of fresh appointment of the petitioner as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the respondent bank. True it is that he was initially appointed / posted as Clerk-cum-Cashier vide appointment letter Annexure P-1 in Paonta Sahib branch of the respondent bank. There is no controversy with respect to one Ms. Sonia Arora who was also appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier and had joined duties as such, well before the appointment of the petitioner. One more person, namely Jaiveer Singh, no doubt, has been appointed in Paonta Sahib branch of the respondent bank after the appointment of the petitioner, however, he being blind to the extent of 90%, as per the policy of the bank, Annexure R-4 to the application registered as CMP 1602 of 2012, filed in this writ petition, could not have been posted in remote area and had to be posted near his native place. 11. 11. It is again a matter of record that this Court vide interim order dated 12.1.2012, passed in this writ petition, which reads as under, had permitted the respondent bank to follow the principle of last come first go: " The order dated 4.1.2012 is further clarified to the effect that in case there is surplus hands at the Branch of State Bank of Patiala, Paonta Sahib, it will be open to the Branch Manager or to the Competent Authority to transfer the surplus hand to any other vacancy following the principle last come first go." 12. No doubt, the aforesaid Shri Jaiveer Singh is the last person who has been appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier at Paonta Sahib, however, in view of the policy being followed by the respondent bank, physically handicapped persons cannot be posted in a remote area and required to be posted near their native place(s). Even the petitioner himself has not denied the factum of aforesaid Shri Jaiveer Singh being a blind person. Reference to this effect can be made to the reply filed on his behalf in CMP 1602 of 2012, as there is no denial to this fact therein. Thus, when the last person said Shri Jaiveer Singh is protected under the policy of the respondent bank, therefore, the petitioner, who being second last, has rightly been transferred to Panog branch of the respondent bank. 13. The petitioner is not justified in claiming that as per the so called transfer policies, Annexures P-3 and P-4, he has a legal right to complete his normal tenure of 5 years at one station, for the reason, firstly that Annexures P-3 and P-4 cannot be treated to be transfer policies, whereas the transfer policy is Annexure R-1 annexed to the reply to the writ petition and secondly the petitioner being a probationer, has no legal right to claim completion of 5 years tenure at one place, because the transfer policy is applicable to regular clerical staff and not to the probationer(s). 14. 14. Above all, in terms of condition No. (c ) in his appointment letter Annexure P-1, reproduced hereinabove, petitioner being a probationer and fresh appointee, can be transferred to any place in India, in connection with the affairs of the bank, at the discretion of the respondents and any request for transfer to a place of his choice, cannot be entertained by the respondent bank, at least for a period of one year and six months, from the date of his joining. 15. No doubt, learned counsel representing the petitioner has made an attempt to show that by posting one more Clerk-cum- Cashier in Panog branch of the respondent bank during the pendency of this writ petition, now there exists no vacancy, however hardly of any help to his case, nor on the basis thereof, impugned order Annexure P-2 can be quashed or set aside, keeping in view the plea set forth by learned counsel for the respondent that such official had to be deployed in the said branch to cope up with the work load, as the petitioner failed to report for duty there. 16. Above all, in terms of the express provisions in the appointment letter Annexure P-1, petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved or dissatisfied by his transfer from Paonta Sahib to Panog, in any manner whatsoever, nor the impugned order, which in my considered view, has been issued only for administrative reasons, can be said to be illegal or invalid. 17. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Interim order(s) shall stand vacated.