Judgment 1. The instant intra-Court appeal arises from the order dated 15.5.2014 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 13611 of 2014. 2. The writ petitioner, while working as Manager (Law), State Bank of India, Administrative Unit, Chennai, was transferred by the competent authority to North-East Circle with a direction to report to the DGM & CDO, LHO, Guwahati for eventual posting vide order dated 02.05.2014. The writ petitioner immediately made a representation on the same day seeking quashing of the said transfer order on the ground that pursuant to the transfer order dated 25.1.2011, he has been posted in Chennai Circle and as such, he has completed only three years and four months. Secondly, his daughter, who had lost her mother in the year 2010, had been admitted to 2 year-IIT coaching classes. Thirdly, no reasons have been assigned for transfer. On 3.5.2014, one more representation was made, wherein, the writ petitioner had stated more reasons, viz., his mother is aged about 68 years, she is suffering from heart problem and he has got only one daughter studying in XII standard. It appears that no order was passed on his representations. Thus, the writ petition in WP No. 13611 of 2014 was filed seeking to quash the said transfer order. 3. The case of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner before the Writ Court was that the transfer was contrary to the transfer policy as enshrined under Regulation 9.5 of the Regulations. As per Regulations, the writ petitioner was entitled to be retained at Chennai for a period of seven years, but, he had completed only three years and four months. Thirdly, the petitioner is a widower having a girl child, who is studying 12th standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Chennai. 4. The Writ Court, having considered all the aspects of the matter, came to the conclusion that the impugned transfer order was passed in breach of provisions of Regulation 9.5 of the Regulations. Consequently, the transfer order was quashed by the Writ Court and the respondent bank was directed to permit the writ petitioner to join duty at Chennai. It was further directed that the period from 2.5.2014 till the petitioner joins duty, shall be treated as casual leave. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Writ Court, the respondents in the writ petition/authorities of the bank have preferred the instant writ appeal. 5. It was further directed that the period from 2.5.2014 till the petitioner joins duty, shall be treated as casual leave. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Writ Court, the respondents in the writ petition/authorities of the bank have preferred the instant writ appeal. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) is that the Writ Court has not considered Regulation 9.5 properly. Under the provisions of Rule 47 of the State Bank Officers' Service Rules, 1992, every Officer is liable for transfer to any office or Branch of the Bank or to any place or deputation to any other organisation throughout India. It is also contended that the writ petitioner was transferred on account of administrative exigency. Thus, the scope of exercise of writ jurisdiction is limited. 6. Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent/ writ petitioner reiterates the same contention as advanced before the Writ Court. He further argues that senior officers have recorded excellent performance of the respondent/writ petitioner and also recommended to retain him at Chennai. Notwithstanding the said fact, the respondent/writ petitioner has been transferred to North-East knowing fully well that he has a girl child, who has to be looked after by him only due to death of her mother. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended to the writ appeal. 8. Indisputably, the respondent/writ petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Bank as Assistant Manager (Law). Thereafter, he was promoted to MMGS-II on 8.2.2005. He was transferred on 17.1.2011 to Bengal Circle. When he was posted in Bangalore, the said order of transfer was challenged in W.P. No. 4370 of 2011 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Bank modified the transfer order from West Bengal to Chennai Circle by order dated 25.1.2011. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner is continuing in Chennai Circle. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, the respondent/writ petitioner had suffered from trials and tribulations during this period on account of demise of his wife on 12.6.2010. A criminal case was registered against him and he had to run from pillar to post. 10. Thereafter, the respondent/writ petitioner is continuing in Chennai Circle. 9. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, the respondent/writ petitioner had suffered from trials and tribulations during this period on account of demise of his wife on 12.6.2010. A criminal case was registered against him and he had to run from pillar to post. 10. At this juncture, it is apposite to extract Regulation 9.5 which deals with transfer policy for specialist officers: “9.5 TRANSFER POLICY FOR SPECIALIST OFFICERS: Keeping in view the requirements of the bank in respect of the specialised expertise provided by Speacilist Officers and to facilitate their career development, the following guidelines have been formulated for transfer of officials in the Specialist Cadre: i. Tenure: The maximum period of stay of specialist officers at any one centre/office will be fixed at 7 years. ii Scope of transfer: a) Transfer of all specialist officials in SMG Scales will be effected on all India basis. b) While transfer of officials in JMG/MMG Scales will be effected within the parent Circle, should the exigencies of service so warrant, such officials will be subjected to transfer outside the Circle, in case no other positions are available within the same Circle or in case of transfers to Corporate Centre. iii Authority Structure for transfers: a) Transfer of officials in SMG Scales will be effected by Corporate Centre. b) Transfer of officials in JMG/MMG Scales posted at Corporate Centre Departments/establishments and inter-circle transfers will be effected by the Corporate Centre. iv Transfer of officials in JMG and MMG Scales will ordinarily be effected by the Circle Authorities on the basis of the laid down norms. v To mitigate hardship to the officials, transfers will be effected to coincide with the academic year to the extent possible. vi Officers who have crossed 55 years of age shall ordinarily be exempted from the purview of the policy. Notwithstanding the provisions as above, the Bank would not be precluded from effecting transfers of officials any time earlier to any place at its discretion, keeping in view the exigencies of service." 11. There is no dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner was governed by the said transfer policy. Clause (i) of Regulation 9.5 provides that the maximum period of stay of specialist officers at any one centre/office will be fixed at 7 years. There is no dispute that the respondent/writ petitioner was governed by the said transfer policy. Clause (i) of Regulation 9.5 provides that the maximum period of stay of specialist officers at any one centre/office will be fixed at 7 years. Clause (ii) (a) of the said Regulation prescribes that transfer of all specialist officials in SMG scales will be effected on all-India basis. Other provisions deal with how transfers will be effected. 12. Rule 47 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules also provides that appointment of the officer is transferable throughout India. Thus, it is clear that services of the respondent/writ petitioner is transferable throughout India. 13. The Writ Court, after having held that if exigency demands, it will not preclude the Bank from transferring the officer, notwithstanding the fact that the officer is yet to complete seven years or that such transfer will be outside the parent circle, observed that the exigency of service should be spelt out in the transfer order to invoke the residuary power given under the Regulation. 14. It is well settled that administrative exigency has to be decided by the employer and the Court cannot go into that, unless it is pleaded and established that the transfer has been effected on account of mala fide exercise of power or the same is in breach of statutory provisions of law and also the order is not passed by a competent authority. 15. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that the impugned transfer order is not passed by a competent authority or the transfer has been effected on account of mala fide exercise of power. Thus, the only ground remains to be seen is as to whether there is any violation of statutory Rules or Regulations. 16. On a perusal of the above stated relevant Regulations, it is evident that a person holding the post of specialist officer can stay at a place for a maximum period of seven years. In the meantime, the officer may be transferred to any other place. If the respondent/writ petitioner is transferred outside the Circle, there should be exigency of service. This is a common requirement of exigency of service. But, it is not necessary to spell out the same in the transfer order itself. 17. In the meantime, the officer may be transferred to any other place. If the respondent/writ petitioner is transferred outside the Circle, there should be exigency of service. This is a common requirement of exigency of service. But, it is not necessary to spell out the same in the transfer order itself. 17. It must be presumed that employer understands and appreciates the exigency of administration by posting a particular employee at a particular place, unless contrary is pleaded and proved. Contrary facts come within the purview of mala fide exercise of power. It is not for the Court to substitute its understanding of administrative exigency for that of the employer. 18. Thus, we are of the view that the Writ Court fell into error in holding that exigency of service should be spelt out in the transfer order to invoke the residuary power given under the Regulations. Law in this aspect is very clear that transfer is an incidence of service and one cannot make a grievance if transfer is made on administrative grounds and without attaching any stigma. [See (2011) 12 SCC 137 ) High Court of Judicature of Madras Vs. R. Perachi]. 19. It is well settled principle of law that in a matter of transfer, the scope of judicial review is limited and the Court/Tribunal must be loath in interfering with the transfer lightly to substitute it with its own decision, unless there is any stigma or mala fide exercise of power or infringement of statutory provisions. [See Airports Authority of India V. Rajeev Ratan Pandy (2009) 8 SCC 337 ] 20. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in SHILPI BOSE (MRS) AND OTHERS Vs. -STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS, 1991, Supp(2) SCC 659, wherein, the Supreme Court directed not to effect transfer till the end of academic year, is not relevant to the facts of the case on hand, as the transfer order was passed on 2.5.2014. By that time, the academic year of the respondent/writ petitioner's daughter was already over. Thus, the respondent/writ petitioner ought to have taken steps immediately for going to a new place and admitting his daughter in an appropriate institution. 21. By that time, the academic year of the respondent/writ petitioner's daughter was already over. Thus, the respondent/writ petitioner ought to have taken steps immediately for going to a new place and admitting his daughter in an appropriate institution. 21. In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the interference by the Writ Court in the transfer order impugned in the writ petition is not warranted. 22. In the result, the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 13611 of 2014 is quashed, the writ appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.