JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 and Ms. D. Tamuk, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the transfer and posting order dated 31.05.2024, issued by the General Manager, (OPS & Admin), Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, whereby, as many as 35 officers, including the petitioner, have been transferred. The petitioner is sought to be transferred and posted from Pasighat branch to Daporijo Branch. 3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner who was working in the capacity of Branch Manager (MM-II), Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank at Branch, Aalo vide order dated 14.06.2022 was transferred and posted to Pasighat Branch and had joined on 17.06.2022. 4. The respondent authorities have issued a common transfer order No.HR/1310 dated 31.05.2024, whereby, as many as 35 officers/officials, including the petitioner, have been transferred, wherein, the petitioner is sought to be transferred from Pasighat branch to Daporijo Branch and the respondent No.3 has been transferred in place of the petitioner. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.06.2024, the respondent No.3 has been released on 11.06.2024 and directed to report to the transferee branch on 13.06.2024 and the petitioner is sought to be released on 15.06.2024 and to report to transferee branch on 17.06.2024. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of the policy guidelines, which regulates the transfer and posting of the officers/officials under the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, namely Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank Transfer Policy 2019 dated 13.12.2019, wherein, inter-alia, it is provided that the tenure of transfer and posting of all the category of officers and staffs to a particular place of posting shall be 3 (three) years. It is contended that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.3 has completed the tenure of three years and the present transfer of the petitioner is within a short period of time and before the completion of 3 (three) years. It is further contended that the respondent No.3 has been transferred from Yazali Branch to Pasighat Branch vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024 without any exigency of service. 6. It is further contended that the respondent No.3 has been transferred from Yazali Branch to Pasighat Branch vide impugned order dated 31.05.2024 without any exigency of service. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved of the transfer and posting order dated 31.05.2024 has filed representation for re-consideration of the petitioner on 03.06.2024 addressing to the Chairman, Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, Head Office, Naharlagun, however, the same has not been considered. The petitioner ventilated his grievance for re-consideration of his transfer on the ground that he has not yet completed the normal tenure of three years and has been subjected to frequent transfer. He also submits that the petitioner has started constructing his residential building and the construction work is going on half way. Moreover, due to demise of his father and he being the eldest male member of the family, has to settle various pending works related to transfer of property etc. 7. Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been issued without there being any reason for transferring the petitioner before completion of normal tenure of three years and only to accommodate the respondent No.3. He submits that as per the Policy Guideline of the Bank, particularly Clause 13(g) provides that the officer/employee should not be posted in the same branch for a period of 6 years. Even after six years, he or she should not be posted in the same capacity at the branch where he or she worked previously, subject to operational and administrative feasibility, whereas, in the present case, the respondent No.3 has been sought to be posted at Pasighat by defying the above guidelines. 8. Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order has been issued by the respondent No.2 who is not the competent authority to issue transfer order in respect of the officers of Scale-II as per norms for transfer of Scale-II officers. He submits that it is the Chairman who is the competent authority to effect the transfer as per the Transfer Policy of 2019. He submits that it is the Chairman who is the competent authority to effect the transfer as per the Transfer Policy of 2019. As the petitioner belongs to Group-A officer of Scale-II, therefore, he submits that the impugned order is arbitrary, discriminatory and in violation of the Transfer Policy of 2019 and as such, the transfer order dated 31.05.2024 and the release order dated 04.06.2024 issued in respect of the petitioner and the private respondent may be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his case, has relied on the following judgments:- (i) Ruokuolhoulie Angami –vs- State of Nagaland, reported in 1997 1 GLT 14 (ii) Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi –vs- U.P. Jal Nigam & Ors. , reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740 (iii) K.K. Hazarika –vs- State of Arunachal Pradesh , reported in 2014 (2) GLT 514 10. E Converso, Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submits that keeping in view the promotion, branch category and human resource related issue and in the interest of proper functioning of the Bank, as many as 31 officers and 4 officials serving in the various branches of the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank have been transferred to various branches on the basis of the recommendation of the committee consisting of the General Manager (OPS & Admin), General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Manager (Human Resource), which was approved by the Chairman of the Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, who is the competent authority. 11 . He submits that the Transfer Policy of 2019 provides that the guidelines should not be construed as giving right to any party to question the authority of the Bank in the matter of transfer and the Bank reserves the right to effect transfer having regards to the exigency of business and administration. That apart, he submits that the guidelines regulating the transfer and posting is not a statutory provisions and are only directory and not mandatory in nature and as such, the guidelines containing transfer policy at best may offer an opportunity to the officer/employee concerned to approach the competent authority for redressal, but cannot have the consequence of depriving or denying the competent authority to transfer the particular officer/employee to any place in public interest and as may be required by the exigency of service. In the instant case, as many as 31 officers and 4 officials have been transferred to different branches of the bank in exigency of service and as such, the representation of the petitioner could not be considered. Therefore, there is no question of frequent transfer, infact, the petitioner has been posted at Pasighat since 2022. 12 . Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, submits that the impugned transfer and posting order has been issued after approval of the Chairman as per the Policy of 2019. The petitioner has annexed the consequent communication made by General Manager (OPS & Admin) communicating the approval of the competent authority for transfer of the said 31 officers and 4 officials for compliance and implementation of the transfer as approved by the competent authority. Therefore, no interference is called for as the impugned order is not in violation of any statutory law or any mala fide has been alleged. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13 . In support of his submissions, Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Union of India and Ors. Vs. SL Abbas , reported in (1993) 4 SCC 357. (ii) Pubi Lombi Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors ., reported in 2024 SCC Online 279. 14 . I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The respondent Bank authorities have issued the impugned transfer and posting order dated 31.05.2024, whereby as many as 31 officers and 4 officials, including the petitioner, have been transferred and posted in different branches of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank. It is seen that the said order has been communicated by the General Manager (OPS & Admin), as the transfer and posting has been approved as per the Transfer Policy of 2019 by the Chairman. As per the Transfer Policy 2019, the officers/officials should not be posted in the same branch for a period of six years, even after six years, he or she should not be posted in the same capacity at the branch where he or she worked previously subject to the operational and administrative feasibility. It also provides the tenure of three years and for the officers of Group-A, the Chairman is the competent authority by effecting the transfer of officers of Scale-II. It also provides the tenure of three years and for the officers of Group-A, the Chairman is the competent authority by effecting the transfer of officers of Scale-II. 16 . On consideration of the Transfer Policy of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank, 2019, as noted above, although normally the officers should be transferred every three years, and also that they should not be posted in the same branch for a period of six years and even after six years he or she should not be posted in the same capacity at the branch where he or she worked previously subject to operational and administrative feasibility, it would not give an indefeasible right to the officers that he or she should not be transferred even there is an administrative exigency or public interest. The Transfer Policy being a guideline does not have enforceability under the law. 17 . Having regard to the allegation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, record reveals that the petitioner was posted at Pasighat since 2022. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed more than 2 (two) years at Pasighat. So far as the grounds cited by the petitioner are concerned, it is for the employer/respondent authority to consider such grievance of the petitioner and not by the Court. 18 . Having considered the matter in its entirety, I am of the view that there is no violation of Transfer Policy of 2019 of Arunachal Pradesh Rural Bank. Even if there is minor aberration in implementing the Transfer Policy, 2019, it would not give an indefeasible right to the petitioner as the Transfer Policy does not have the statutory force and is not enforceable under the law. No doubt, the norms professed in the absence of statutory Rules, the authorities are bound to follow the said norms but since there is no violation as such, no interference is called for to the impugned transfer and posting of the officers/officials. 19 . Regard being had to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the transfer has been effected by an authority not competent to transfer the petitioner, as the recommendation for transfer and posting is approved by the Chairman, who is the competent authority, therefore, such submission of the petitioner falls flat as it clearly reveals from the record that the same has been approved by the Chairman i.e. the competent authority. 20. 20. Now, this Court would refer and consider the case laws relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Ruokuolhoulie Angami (Supra), it has been observed which is quoted hereinbelow:- “8. This Court in a catena of decision has held that, for cancellation, modification or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order passed in Public interest must be supported with sufficient reasons necessitating for passing such order. The view taken by this Court has rationale behind it. Once the transfer order is made in public interest Court normally do not interfere unless the order is passed with malafide or against the statutory rules. The only way open to the aggrieved Government servant is to file a representation before the competent authority to redress his grievances. But this Court insist that for cancellation/modification or keeping it in abeyance of such order must be supported with sufficient reasons, because transfer of officers are always made in public interest and after elaborate exercise as to who should be transferred where in the exigency of the administration. While processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. One such factors being the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. If an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, no doubt, that he also acquires a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area, but at the same time he also often establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association and to avoid such eventualities timely posting is always called for. Therefore, if the transfer order made in public interest is allowed to be taken away by another cryptic order modifying/cancelling or keeping in abeyance of the transfer order without assigning any reasons, it ceases to be in public interest. Therefore, it must be held that the order has been passed at the whims and caprice of the authorities exercising the power. Public interest would not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of the whims and caprice of the authority exercising the power. It must be grasped that public authority possesses power to use for public interest.” In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under :- “ 3. Public interest would not be allowed to be sacrificed at the altar of the whims and caprice of the authority exercising the power. It must be grasped that public authority possesses power to use for public interest.” In Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which is reproduced herein under :- “ 3. In our view, transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. The power of transferring an officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily, mala fide or an exercise against efficient and independent officer or at the instance of politicians whose work is not done by the officer concerned. For better administration the officers concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed by repeated transfers or transfers ordered at the instance of someone who has nothing to do with the business of administration.” In K.K. Hazarika (Supra), it has been held and observed which is reproduced herein below:- “13. This is a classic case wherein an officer has been transferred to accommodate a blue-eyed junior officer solely on political considerations. It is true that political executives and public representatives can put forward their views to the concerned controlling authorities of an officer but they cannot rule the roost. Public representatives role in the matter of appointment, transfer, disciplinary action of Government employees is very limited. In strict sense, public representatives, should have no say in these matters, unless they are members of any such committee. At best they can draw the attention of the concerned superior officers about any dishonest practice and misconduct of their subordinate officers or even their good performance and these feed-back can be taken care of by the superior authorities, while assessing the performance of the officers for the purpose of their promotion or transfer. In my considered opinion, except this limited role the political executives can not issue any writ or mandatory order to transfer an officer to a particular, place or give a specific posting to another officer, as has been done in this case. If such practice is approved by the judiciary it would result in arbitrary and mala fide transfers and postings on extraneous consideration and Government Officers will not be able to do their duties fearlessly and faithfully as the sword of transfer would always hover over their head. If such practice is approved by the judiciary it would result in arbitrary and mala fide transfers and postings on extraneous consideration and Government Officers will not be able to do their duties fearlessly and faithfully as the sword of transfer would always hover over their head. It is high time that the Government ensure and posting of Government officers strictly on the basis of set norms and guidelines.” 14. In the case of Roukuoloulie Angami (supra) this court has observed that it is not desirable that an officer should be allowed to continue at a particular place for a long duration in the following words: “…………While processing the transfer order, various factors are taken into consideration. One such factors being the duration of the stationing of one officer in a particular station for a long time. If an officer is posted in a particular station for a long time, no doubt, that he also acquire a considerable knowledge about the administration of the area, but at the same time he also often establishes vested interest in the area because of his long association and to avoid such eventualities, timely posting is always called for……” 21 . Having perused the above case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, same are clearly distinguishable as the main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while issuing the order of transfer and posting, no reason has been recorded. In my view, it is not that in each and every case of transfer, a reason has to be recorded, however, in a given case, as held in the case of Ruokuolhoulie Angami (supra), a transfer and posting order issued in public interest, if modified, a reason has to be assigned. 22. In the case of SL Abbas (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed which is reproduced herein under:- “6. An order of transfer is an incident of Government Service. Fundamental Rule 11 says that "the whole time of a Government servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority". Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. Fundamental Rule 15 says that "the President may transfer a government servant from one post to another". That the respondent is liable to transfer anywhere in India is not in dispute. It is not the case of the respondent that order of his transfer is vitiated by mala fides on the part of the authority making the order,- though the Tribunal does say so merely because certain guidelines issued by the Central Government are not followed, with which finding we shall deal later. The respondent attributed"mischief"to his immediate superior who had nothing to do with his transfer. All he says is that he should not be transferred because his wife is working at shillong, his children are studying there and also because his health had suffered a set-back some time ago. He relies upon certain executive instructions issued by the Government in that behalf. Those instructions are in the nature of guidelines. They do not have statutory force. 7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by malafides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the government employee a legally enforceable right.” 23. In Pubi Lombi (Supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held which are quoted herein below:- “9. In the case of Union of India and others v. S.L. Abbas; (1993) 4 SCC 357 , it is clearly observed by this Court that the scope of judicial review is only available when there is a clear violation of statutory provision or the transfer is persuaded by malafide, non-observation of executive instructions does not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The relevant paragraph reads as under: “7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject……..” 10 . Further, following the footsteps of S.L. Abbas (supra) this Court in the case of Union of India and another v. N.P. Thomas; 1993 Supp (1) SCC 704 held that the interference by the Court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferrable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible. 11 . This Court further curtailed the scope of judicial review in the case of N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others; (1994) 6 SCC 98 holding that the person challenging the transfer ought to prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to public interest. It was further reiterated that interference is only justified in a case of malafide or infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in the cases where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference to the transfer must be eschewed. It is further held that the evidence requires to prove such transfer is prejudicial and in absence thereof interference is not warranted. The law reiterated by this Court is reproduced, in following words: - “9. Transfer of a public servant from a significant post can be prejudicial to public interest only if the transfer was avoidable and the successor is not suitable for the post. Suitability is a matter for objective assessment by the hierarchical superiors in administration. To introduce and rely on the element of prejudice to public interest as a vitiating factor of the transfer of a public servant, it must be first pleaded and proved that the replacement was by a person not suitable for the important post and the transfer was avoidable. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. XXX XXX XXX 23. Unless this is pleaded and proved at the threshold, no further inquiry into this aspect is necessary and its absence is sufficient to exclude this factor from consideration as a vitiating element in the impugned transfer. Accordingly, this aspect requires consideration at the outset. XXX XXX XXX 23. …….Unless the decision is vitiated by mala fides or infraction of any professed norm or principle governing the transfer, which alone can be scrutinised judicially, there are no judicially manageable standards for scrutinising all transfers and the courts lack the necessary expertise for personnel management of all government departments. This must be left, in public interest, to the departmental heads subject to the limited judicial scrutiny indicated.” “24. …Challenge in courts of a transfer when the career prospects remain unaffected and there is no detriment to the government servant must be eschewed and interference by courts should be rare, only when a judicially manageable and permissible ground is made out. This litigation was ill-advised.” 13 . It is not tangential to mention that this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh Dhatt; AIR 1993 SC 2486 observed as thus: - “3……..It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time a public servant is transferred from his present posting………” 24 . In the present case, evidently, the impugned order of transfer and posting is a common transfer order whereby as many as 31 officers and 4 officials have been transferred in view of the promotion of officers, branch category and other human resource related issues as well as in the interest of better functioning of the bank. It is also revealed that the officers and officials have been transferred to various branches in the interest of public service and administrative exigency. 25 . In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned transfer and posting order dated 31.06.2024. Accordingly, no interference is called for. 26. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s).