Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. The appellant in the present writ appeal was the writ petitioner, in W.P.No.33145 of 2013. The said writ petition had been filed praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent, dated 7.10.2013, transferring the petitioner from the office of the State Bank of India, Omalur, Salem District, to the SSP Campus Branch and to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work in the second respondent branch office, as per the representation of the petitioner, dated 9.11.2013. 3. By an order, dated 16.12.2013, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition stating that the petitioner was not in a position to substantiate his claim that his transfer was due to mala fide motive. It had also been noted that the petitioner had been working in the second respondent branch office, for more than 9 years. As he was the senior most clerical staff, he had been transferred from the second respondent branch office, due to administrative reasons, as his services were needed in the SSP Campus Branch. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner in the said writ petition had filed the present writ appeal stating that the order passed by the learned single Judge is erroneous, he had not considered the fact that the petitioner had been working in the second respondent branch office, for a period of about 9½ years, without any adverse remarks. Further, it had been stated that the appellant in the present writ appeal had refused to accept the offer of promotion, on two occasions, as such promotion would entail his transfer to a different place. 5. It had also been stated that the appellant had been transferred, as he had participated in an agitation, as a member of the union, representing the schedule caste and schedule tribe employees. It had also been stated that the petitioner had been undergoing medical treatment for a heart ailment and for diabetics. 6. We had considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We had perused the records available before this Court. 7. It had also been stated that the petitioner had been undergoing medical treatment for a heart ailment and for diabetics. 6. We had considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. We had perused the records available before this Court. 7. On a reading of the impugned transfer order issued by the first respondent, dated 7.10.2013, it is clear that the appellant had been transferred to the SSP Campus Branch, under the re-employment policy being followed by the respondent bank. The transfer order had been passed purely on administrative grounds. 8. The claim made by the appellant that the first respondent had passed the order of transfer due to mala fide motive had not been substantiated with sufficient evidence. On the contrary, it is noted that the appellant had been working in the second respondent branch office for more than 9 years and his services were needed at the SSP Campus Branch. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 16.12.2013, made in W.P.No.33145 of 2013. Therefore, the present writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.