ORDER : 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i. Certiorari quashing Order No. JKB/IR/2022-23-482 dated 21.03.2023, whereby the representation/appeal filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 499/2023, had wrongly been rejected by respondent No. 1, without considering the Transfer Policy framed and published by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank on 01.09.2021 regulating the transfers of the Jammu & Kashmir Bank employees/officials/officers. ii. Certiorari quashing Order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2022- 23/1193 dated 16.02.2023 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the petitioner had wrongly been transferred from the post of Chief Manager lmpaired Asset Portfolio Management at Zonal Office, Jammu and posted as Branch Manager in Branch (Radish) Rajouri in violation of the Transfer Policy dated 01.09.2021 , irrespective of the fact that the petitioner, who had already served five hard zones before his transfer to Jammu as Branch Manager, J&K Bank Branch, Channi Himmat, Jammu, had been wrongly transferred to hard zone in violation of the Rule- 5(1) read with Rule-6 of the Transfer Policy framed and published by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank on 01 .09.2021 with appendix attached thereto. iii. Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Chief Manager, lmpaired Asset Portfolio Management at Zonal Office, Jammu and also allow him to complete his routine tenure of three years in terms of the Rule-5 of the Transfer Policy dated 01.09.2021. OR iv. Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioner, who was highly qualified and eligible, came to be appointed as Cashier/Clerk in the year 1995 and had discharged his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superior officers. In the year 2000, he had been declared qualified as P.O. in the Bank Examination conducted by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank and was appointed as Manager in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank. After his appointment as Manager in the J&K Bank, he was posted in District Doda and District Kishtwar, which are hard stations. In the year 2000, he had been declared qualified as P.O. in the Bank Examination conducted by the Jammu & Kashmir Bank and was appointed as Manager in the Jammu & Kashmir Bank. After his appointment as Manager in the J&K Bank, he was posted in District Doda and District Kishtwar, which are hard stations. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and posted as Branch Head in Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ramban in the year 2019, which is also a hard area location/zone as per the Transfer policy. After serving there as Branch Head, Ramban for sixteen months, he came to be transferred prematurely to Cluster Head, Ramban located at Batote, that too, from one hard area to another hard area vide order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2020-21/1038 dated 20.10.2020. Thereafter, he was transferred to Branch Head Channi Himmat, Jammu, prematurely by virtue of order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2021-22/2259 dated 14.03.2022. 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that he had served as Branch Head Channi Himmat, Jammu only for five months and he was deputed to GSS Department vide deputation order dated 31.08.2022 issued by personnel Department Zonal Office, Jammu, who were not competent to depute a Branch Head on deputation, that too, without assigning any reason for the same. The petitioner remained on deputation for a period of one month & three days only and again was transferred & posted as lncharge lmpaired Asset portfolio Management at Zonal Office, Jammu from Branch Head Channi Himmat, Jammu without any reference to deputation order (supra) by virtue of order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2022-23/786 dated 04.10.2022. After posting of the petitioner as lncharge lmpaired Asset Portfolio Management Zonal Office, Jammu, he was again transferred to J&K Bank Branch (Radish) Rajouri vide Order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2022-23/1193 dated 16.02.2023 against the Transfer Policy dated 01.09.2021 and without adhering to the Rule-5(1) and Rule-(6) of the Transfer policy, which are reproduced as under:- “ Rule-5.1 Rotational Transfer. ’Rotational Transfers will be applicable for all officers in the organization on completion of tenure at a place. The tenure for all roles in all locations other than hardship location shall be three years from the day of joining, after which the officer will be considered due for transfer. However, in exigencies, the management has the right to extend the tenure to five years for certain roles like Branch Head/Sectional Head posting in Treasury Operations/IAPM/Risk Management Credit etc) which shall be a pure business decision. However, in exigencies, the management has the right to extend the tenure to five years for certain roles like Branch Head/Sectional Head posting in Treasury Operations/IAPM/Risk Management Credit etc) which shall be a pure business decision. An officer irrespective of placement at one or more Business Units/Offices shall not be posted in the same district/station for more than Six years consecutively. The tenure for rotational transfer for hardship location is given in Appendix-1. Note: An officer/employee with a hardship location as his place of domicile and posted at the same hardship location shall be treated as local for the said hardship location. Rule-6 Criteria for Transfer:- ’i. All Officers of the Bank are liable for transfer from the place they have been treated as local to any Hard Area/Outside State/UT of domicile/Revenue Division as per the following schedule. After completing the tenure at the new place of posting, they shall be transferred back to their hometown/place where they have been treated as local. Area Category No of times for which posting can be considered Tenure Identified Hard area Once in service career (upper age limit 50 years) Appendix-I Outside State/UT of Domicile Twice in service career after a minimum gap of 6 years (upper age limit 55 years) 3 years Inter/Intra division as in State/UT Revenue records Twice in service career after a gap of 6 years 3 years Inter/intra District No restriction 3 years The above criteria for placement of officers is only illustrative and shall be subordinate to the Bank’ s policy for ’Promotion of Mainstream and Technical Stream Officers ’ in force. Appropriate care shall be taken to ensure that the placement of an officer in each scale is made in a way so that all eligibility criteria enabling the officer to qualify for future promotion are met. ii. Officers serving in locations outside the State/UT of Domicile/or serving in a Hard Area (other than his place of residence) on completion of tenure will be posted in their domicile district/adjacent nearby districts as per availability of vacancies at the Bank’s BU/Office. iii. ii. Officers serving in locations outside the State/UT of Domicile/or serving in a Hard Area (other than his place of residence) on completion of tenure will be posted in their domicile district/adjacent nearby districts as per availability of vacancies at the Bank’s BU/Office. iii. An officer who has sought recruitment in the Bank on basis of being a domicile of a Rural/Backward/Border area, shall not be permitted to seek his transfer to a nearby urban/semi-urban location/other zone for a period not less than 6 years and he shall ordinarily be placed in the Rural/Semi-urban Business Units in the same zone during the said period unless his services are required at some other location or he falls due for Outside UT Zone. ln the event, the officer is placed at some other location in the urban-semi-urban Business Unit in the same/other zone during the said lock-in period of 6 years, he shall be transferred back to the same rural area as to complete the lock-in period of 6 years from the place of domicile, he had sought recruitment in the Bank. iv. Notwithstanding, the criteria for transfer as illustrated above shall not apply in the situation where the Management understands that the officer is not maintaining proper conduct and discipline or is indulging or has indulged in activities detrimental to the interests of the Bank/Country; such officer shall be placed at any location as may be deemed appropriate by the Managements. v. Officers with blemished past record and established acts of gross misconduct/irregularities shall not be given to handle responsibilities in sensitive and key functional dimensions. vi. For the purpose of the inter-district transfers, the inter-district transfers shall mean when an officer is posted at a distance of more than 35 Kms. from his/her residence in other districts. vii. The provisions of these guidelines shall be applicable for those officers who are transferred after the date of these guidelines are circulated. viii. There will be a proper Male-Female ratio in Business unite/Front offices except women specified Business Unit if any.’ 4. from his/her residence in other districts. vii. The provisions of these guidelines shall be applicable for those officers who are transferred after the date of these guidelines are circulated. viii. There will be a proper Male-Female ratio in Business unite/Front offices except women specified Business Unit if any.’ 4. The further case of the petitioner is that he had assailed the said order dated 16.02.2023 in the earlier round of litigation before this Court by way of a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 499/2023 and this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondents regarding his grievances raised in the said writ petition within a period of two weeks and the respondents, on receipt of such representation, were directed to accord consideration by deciding the same within a period of four weeks thereafter. 5. It is further averred that in view of Rule-14 of the Transfer Policy, the petitioner was under obligation to make a representation to respondent No. 2 against his transfer order and the petitioner as such had made a representation dated 20.02.2023 to respondent No. 2, projecting his grievance against frequent transfers in contravention to the Bank Transfer Policy, who was pleased to reject the same vide order dated 21.02.2023. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file representation/appeal for cancellation/recall of the transfer order, therefore, the petitioner had made a representation/appeal pursuant to order of this Court before respondent No. 1, who, by virtue of Order No. JKB/IR/2O22-23-482 dated 21.09.2023 had rejected the representation of the petitioner without taking into consideration the Transfer policy and the grounds raised in the representation. 6. Objections have been filed, wherein it has been stated that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed, as the same raises disputed questions of facts which this Court while exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not adjudicate upon. He also submits that this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction may not direct the answering respondents to post/adjust an employee at a particular place and the Courts are not the appellate forums to decide the transfer matters made on administrative grounds in the interest of Administration and this Court may not go into expediency of posting/adjusting an Officer at a particular place. 7. 7. It is the stand of the respondents that it is for the employer to see where the services of its employee can best be utilized and the employee has no right and cannot ask to be posted at a particular place of his choice and this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction may not direct the answering respondents to post the petitioner at a particular place of his own choice. According to him, transfer is not only an exigency of service, but an incident and the condition of service also and this Court may not interfere in the matter of transfer in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score also. 8. The further stand of the respondents is that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner is seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus to allow him to work as Chief Manager, IAPM at Zonal Office, Jammu, whereas the Bank has already issued an order and posted an Official as lncharge IAPM, Jammu and moreover, the petitioner has neither challenged the said order nor arrayed the said official as respondent in the present writ petition. 9. It is averred that both the orders dated 21-03-2023 and 16-02-2023 have been passed strictly in terms of the rules and regulations governing the subject matter and keeping in view the exigency of service which are legal and valid. It is further submitted by the respondents that the order dated 21-03-2023 has been passed as per the directions passed by this Court vide its order dated 03-03-2023. According to respondents, the petitioner is basically a resident of Bhaderwah (Doda) and as per policy of the Bank, an official who is resident of a hard station and posted in the same station, such tenure shall not be considered for hard station for him. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was transferred from Branch Head Ramban to Cluster Head Ramban vide Order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2020- 21/1038 dated 20.10.2020. Thereafter, he was transferred to Branch Head Channi Himmat vide Order No. JKB/HR- Placements/2021-2212059 dated 14-03-2022 in the interest of administration. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner was transferred from Branch Head Ramban to Cluster Head Ramban vide Order No. JKB/HR-Placements/2020- 21/1038 dated 20.10.2020. Thereafter, he was transferred to Branch Head Channi Himmat vide Order No. JKB/HR- Placements/2021-2212059 dated 14-03-2022 in the interest of administration. 10. The further stand of the respondents is that the deputation of officers/officials on need basis or exigencies are affected from time to time as per procedure and likewise, they are being transferred keeping in view the best interest of the Bank. The competent authority while rejecting the representation of the petitioner had taken into consideration all the aspects of the case. Further, the respondents have placed reliance on Clause 10 of Transfer policy, which is reproduced as under:- “ The transferee, if he/she so desires, can file representation against order of transfer before the President HR, within a period of 07 days from the date of its issuance through People Soft portal which shall be decided by the authority within 21 working days from the date of receipt of the representation. ln the event the representation is rejected by the authority, the officer shall have no right to file subsequent representation, however, if he/she chooses so, the officer can file an appeal against the order of rejection before the CMD/MD &CEO, but during pendency of the appeal, the officer shall have no right to seek continuation at his place of posting.” 11. Lastly, it is averred in the objections that the petitioner being an employee of the Bank is duty bound during his service career to serve the Bank and may be posted in any Branch or Office of the bank located at any place within or outside UT of J&K (erstwhile State of J&K) and he has to perform the duties as per assignments given by the bank from time to time. It is the prerogative of the management to decide about transfers of officers and, accordingly, the representation/appeal of the petitioner was duly considered and being found devoid of merits, have been rejected keeping in view the emergent and peculiar circumstances. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. 13. It is the prerogative of the management to decide about transfers of officers and, accordingly, the representation/appeal of the petitioner was duly considered and being found devoid of merits, have been rejected keeping in view the emergent and peculiar circumstances. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. 13. The present petition raises disputed question of facts, which cannot be gone into while adjudicating the writ jurisdiction and it goes without saying that it is the prerogative of the employer to see that how the services of the employee can be best utilized and the employee has no unfettered right to ask for being posted at a particular place of his choice and this Court while exercising extraordinary writ jurisdiction may not be in a position to direct the respondents to post the petitioner at a particular place of his own choice. Thus, posting of the petitioner at Rajouri is in consonance with the aforesaid policy. Rather from the stand taken by the respondents, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has been entrusted with high responsibility of Branch Manager, Rajouri, keeping in view the emergent circumstance strictly in tune with the Clause-IV of the Transfer Policy, which reads as under:- “ Placement of any officer is without prejudice to the bank’s right to transfer any official in emergent circumstances or on compliant basis or on dismal performance at any point of time or as desired by the Management in line with the organizational goals.” 14. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the Branch Manager-Mr. Jasbir Singh, Chief Manager was suspended on 16.02.2023 and after his suspension, Branch Rajouri being the biggest branch of that zone in terms of the business, which also includes currency chest and treasury, left without Branch Manager, keeping in view the emergent requirement of a senior officer of Class-IV as Branch Manager, Rajouri has arisen and the petitioner being experienced, was entrusted with the higher responsibility. 15. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner was relieved and was entrusted with the high responsibility to join at Rajouri Branch as Branch Manager. 15. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner was relieved and was entrusted with the high responsibility to join at Rajouri Branch as Branch Manager. The petitioner, thus, having been entrusted with the higher responsibility of Branch as Branch Manager in emergent circumstance at Rajouri strictly in tune with Clause-IV of the transfer policy, has no unfettered right of staying at a particular place, as the respondents have acted in furtherance of the said policy and, thus, the instant petition, which has been filed for seeking a direction against the respondents to post the petitioner at a particular place, is misconceived, devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. 16. It goes without saying that no employee has an unfettered right of staying at a particular place, as transfer is an exigency of service and it has to be left to the employer to see how the services of an employee can be best utilized at a particular place and in the instant case, the petitioner has been entrusted with the high responsibility keeping in view import of the said policy, wherein the policy specifically provides that any officer can be placed at a particular place without prejudice to the bank’s right to transfer any official in emergent circumstances or on complaint basis or on dismal performance at any point of time or as desired by the Management in line with the organizational goals. 17. Admittedly, in the instant case, from the record, it appears that the petitioner has been entrusted with the higher responsibility keeping in view the emergent situation, which is in tune with the said policy and, thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to agitate that the action of the respondents in posting the petitioner at a particular place is in derogation to the mandate and spirit of the aforesaid policy, rather the action of the respondents is in conformity with the said policy and is in the interest of the organization. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would feel satisfied in case, a direction is issued to the respondents that while according consideration to the case of the petitioner for according transfer henceforth, the policy which has been framed by the respondents, shall be given due consideration, to which, Mr. P.N. Raina, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has no objection. 19. P.N. Raina, learned Senior counsel for the respondents has no objection. 19. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, no fruitful purpose would be served to keep the instant petition pending and the same is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the respondents that while according consideration to the case of the petitioner for according transfer henceforth, the policy which has been framed by the respondents shall be accorded due consideration. 20. The writ petition is, as such, is disposed of alongwith the connected application, in the manner indicated above. 21. Needless to say that in case, the petitioner has worked and there is no other legal impediment, the respondents are directed to release salary in favour of the petitioner for the period, he has already worked.