J UDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent bank. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner assailing the order dated 21.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 3, whereby the Petitioner is transferred from the Guwahati Zonal office to the UCO Bank Main Office, Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati. 3. The Petitioner has been serving as a Scale-III officer in the Respondent Bank and was posted at the Zonal Office at Silpukhuri, Guwahati. The Petitioner is also a member of the All India UCO Bank Officers’ Federation (AIUCBOF), which is the central union of the officers’ of the bank. The Petitioner is also a member of the UCO Bank Officers’ Association, NER, wherein the Petitioner holds the office of the Joint General Secretary. 4. It is stated that the Transfer Policy to be adopted for the transfers for the year 2025-26 was initially notified on 29.10.2024. However, on 29.03.2025, the Respondent Bank notified another Transfer Policy after the approval of the Board of Directors. Clause 20.9 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.03.2025 provides for transfer protection/exemption to certain office bearers of recognized Unions/Associations of the Bank. On 03.05.2025, the Respondent No.2 issued an order laying down the “action points” for carrying out the annual transfer exercise. As per clause 3, under the heading of “transfer instructions for Zonal Heads/Department Heads at HO” stipulates that intra-zone transfer exercises, including reporting of officers at new places of posting, should be completed within 12.05.2025. On 18.06.2025, the Respondent No. 2 issued an Advisory on Posting of Union Office Bearers in Zonal Offices (herein after referred to as “Advisory”) wherein it was, inter alia, advised that the Office Bearers in the Unions/Associations should not be posted in zonal/controlling/monitoring offices, avoid placing in sensitive areas of HR functions, i.e., HRM, PSD and Vigilance. It also advised the Zonal Offices to carry out a review of manpower and do the necessary compliance of the Advisory so issued. On 21.06.2025, the Respondent No.3 issued an order whereby the Petitioner was transferred from the Zonal Office to UCO Bank Main Branch, Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati. 5. It also advised the Zonal Offices to carry out a review of manpower and do the necessary compliance of the Advisory so issued. On 21.06.2025, the Respondent No.3 issued an order whereby the Petitioner was transferred from the Zonal Office to UCO Bank Main Branch, Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the order of his transfer is in total violation of the Transfer Policy issued by the Respondent bank. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the act of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the Advisory dated 18.06.2025 to review manpower in order to pick and choose employees on the basis of their involvement in recognized Unions and Associations and thereafter, directing to transfer such employees, including the Petitioner, is in violation of the existing Transfer Policy of the Respondent bank. 6. The Respondent bank has contested the case by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition to which an Affidavit-in- Reply has also been filed by the Petitioner. An Additional Affidavit has also been filed by the Petitioner to bring on record certain facts alleging harassment by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner after the impugned order of transfer was stayed by this Court, vide an interim order dated 27.06.2025. 7. Mr. D. Deka, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Transfer Policy, which is holding the field presently, was notified on 29.03.2025 after the due approval of the Board of Directors of the Respondent bank. These are comprehensive guidelines which covers all the employees of the Respondent bank in the event of their transfers. He submits that the existence of a detailed transfer policy indicates a transfer in the Respondent bank has to be affected only as per the policy so professed. He submits that the Transfer Policy prescribes and notes different situations of transfer and further lays down the maximum and minimum stay in a place of posting. He submits that it further reflects that the exercise of transfer by the Respondent bank is to be preferably initiated in the month of March and completed by the month of June every year. He submits that the timeline for the transfer exercise mentioned in the policy is in order to maintain the certainty as regards the employee’s place of posting. He submits that the timeline for the transfer exercise mentioned in the policy is in order to maintain the certainty as regards the employee’s place of posting. He submits that the clause 10 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.03.2025 discards and dissuades mid-year transfers and in fact, for carrying out such mid-year transfer, prior approval of HO-HRM (the Respondent No.2) has to be obtained. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submits that clause 20.9 of the Transfer Policy dated 29.03.2025 was specifically inserted to provide transfer protection/exemption regarding the transfer of Office Bearers of Unions/Associations. The clause provides that the Office Bearers, namely, President, Senior Vice President, General Secretary, Joint General Secretary, Treasurer, Deputy General Secretary and Vice president are given certain exemptions and transfer protections. The clause also provides that the Managing Director & CEO only shall have the power to make any deviation regarding transfer protection of Office Bearers of recognized Union/Association. He submits that the aforesaid clause gives certain benefits to the Office Bearers of the Unions of the Respondent bank, and the same has been accepted across the board and the policy has been in vogue since the year 2025, when it was brought into effect. He submits that the Respondent bank had been adhering to the transfer policy for effecting all the transfers in the Bank since then. However, the Respondent No.2 had suddenly issued the Advisory dated 18.06.2025, whereby it was advised that the Office Bearers in the Unions/Associations should not be posted in Zonal/Controlling/Monitoring Offices and avoid placing in sensitive areas of HR functions, i.e., HRM, PSD and Vigilance. He submits that the Advisory was issued without any approval of the Board of Directors, which is actually in contravention to the existing Transfer Policy which has been laid down after the consent of the Board of Directors. He submits that the Respondent No.2 has no authority, infact, to modify the Transfer Policy by issuing such an Advisory. He submits that in view of the aforesaid Advisory only, the Petitioner was directed to be transferred out of turn against the provisions of the existing Transfer Policy. He submits that the Respondent No.2 has no authority, infact, to modify the Transfer Policy by issuing such an Advisory. He submits that in view of the aforesaid Advisory only, the Petitioner was directed to be transferred out of turn against the provisions of the existing Transfer Policy. He submits that surprisingly, the Respondent No.2, by his aforesaid Advisory, has modified the Transfer Policy and posting connected with the Office Bearers of the Unions and Associations so as to discriminate against such Office Bearers by creating a class within a class of employees, which is not allowed under the settled law. He submits that clause 20.9 of the Transfer Policy clearly stipulates that any change to the exemptions given to the Office Bearers of the Unions and Associations should be carried out only by the MD & CEO of the bank and no one else. However, in the instant case, he submits that the Advisory was issued by the Respondent No.2, who is not authorized to issue such Advisory which has affected the exemptions provided to the Office Bearers of the Unions/Associations of the Respondent Bank under clause 20.9 of the Transfer Policy. He submits that the All India UCO Bank Officers’ Federation and the UCO Bank Officers’ Association have already challenged the Advisory dated 18.06.2025 in a separate writ petition being WP(C) No. 2620/2025, and the same is still pending before this Court. He submits that the aforesaid Advisory discriminates negatively between the employees of the Respondent Bank by creating a class of Office Bearers and Non-Office Bearers. He submits that this classification has no just object, but it is based on apprehension, and therefore, the Advisory so issued is bad in law. Consequently, the transfer of the Petitioner, which has been affected on the basis of the aforesaid Advisory, is bad in law. He further submits that the yearly transfer exercise was completed in the month of May, 2025. However, the Petitioner has been transferred after the expiry of such period, which is definitely an extraordinary transfer guided by the Advisory dated 18.06.2025. 9. The learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner has not completed 3 (three) years of the normal retention period in the present place of posting. However, the Petitioner has been transferred after the expiry of such period, which is definitely an extraordinary transfer guided by the Advisory dated 18.06.2025. 9. The learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner has not completed 3 (three) years of the normal retention period in the present place of posting. He submits that as per clause 12.1.2 of the aforesaid Transfer Policy, for intra- zone transfers, though the normal retention period at a place/branch shall be three (3) years, the period spent on deputation outside the current place of posting/branch, for a period of more than 30 days in each year, shall be excluded in calculating the three (3) years’ period. Therefore, he submits that in view of the aforesaid provision, though the Petitioner has spent three (3) years’ period in the present place of posting, if his period of deputation is excluded, then his three (3) years’ normal retention period is yet to be over. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that his transfer is also illegal being against the Transfer Policy, as his normal retention period of three (3) years’ is yet to be over. He submits that the Petitioner being a top performer as per his appraisal report prepared by the Respondent bank, he could not have been transferred as a non-performer. 10. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that his transfer is against the existing Transfer Policy of employees, as the same has violated several policies as prescribed for the employees of the Respondent bank. He submits that by the aforesaid Advisory dated 18.06.2025, the Petitioner, along with some other Office Bearers have been discriminated and the Respondent bank treated them as a different class by transferring them to different places out of the turns. In support of his submission that the creation of a separate class of Office Bearers vis-a-vis Non- Office Bearers is without any justifiable object and hence bad in law, he has referred to the case of All Manipur Pensioner Association VS. The State of Manipur and Ors. reported in 2020 14 SCC 625 and the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh & Anr, reported in 2012 SCC 307 . The State of Manipur and Ors. reported in 2020 14 SCC 625 and the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh & Anr, reported in 2012 SCC 307 . In support of his other argument that the Petitioner is a top performer and therefore, he should not have been transferred as a non-performer, he has referred to the case of N.K.Singh Vs. Union of India and Others , reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 . 11. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent bank, submits that there is neither any violation of the existing Transfer Policy nor was the Petitioner transferred as a punitive measure. He submits that the Petitioner was, in fact, transferred as per the Transfer Policy, which provides for the transfer of an employee of the Bank in exigencies of the Bank’s requirement. He submits that the Respondent Bank is a nationalized bank, and every officer of the Bank is liable to be transferred to any place in India. He submits that the service conditions of the officers/employees of the Bank are governed by a Regulation, namely the UCO Bank Officers’ (Service) Regulations, 1979. He submits that Regulation 47 of the aforesaid Regulations, 1979 provides that every officer is liable to transfer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place in India. He submits that since the statute provides for transfer of an officer to any place in India, in the instant case also, the Petitioner has been transferred after completion of his normal retention period of three (3) years’. Therefore, there is no violation of any statutory provision relating to the transfer of the Petitioner. He further submits that in terms of clause 2 of the Transfer Policy, the Petitioner’s movement to the branch from the Zonal Office is, in fact, a placement, not a transfer as his transferred place is within the same center under the same Zonal Office, Guwahati, and the same is a movement from the Zonal Office to the Branch Office only. Hence, in the Petitioner’s case, there is no change of center at all. He further submits that as per the Transfer Policy also under clause 12.3 (iv), the limit of the tenure (Normal Tenure of three years) would not apply in cases where the transfer is due to exigencies of the Bank’s requirements. Hence, in the Petitioner’s case, there is no change of center at all. He further submits that as per the Transfer Policy also under clause 12.3 (iv), the limit of the tenure (Normal Tenure of three years) would not apply in cases where the transfer is due to exigencies of the Bank’s requirements. In the instant case also, he submits that the transfer has been made in the exigencies of the Bank’s requirement and not as per the Advisory as contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He further submits that transfer is a part of the service life of an employee and the employer has every right to transfer an employee in the exigencies of service, which is not against any statute or rule. He further submits that judicial review of transfer orders is very limited and the courts should refrain from interfering with the transfer orders, which are carried out in the normal course in a routine manner. He submits that in the instant case, the transfer is not punitive or without any stigma. He submits that transfers, unless they involve any adverse impact or visit the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to the same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service, which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has referred to the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs Janardhan Debanath and Anr, reported in (2004) 4 SCC 245 . 12. In the instant case, it is seen that the Petitioner has been transferred from the Zonal Office to UCO Bank Main Branch, Fancy Bazaar, Guwahati, which has been impugned in the instant case. The contention of the Petitioner is mainly that on the basis of the Advisory dated 18.06.2025, his transfer has been affected, though the Advisory itself is not as per law, as the same has not been approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank. The contention of the Petitioner is mainly that on the basis of the Advisory dated 18.06.2025, his transfer has been affected, though the Advisory itself is not as per law, as the same has not been approved by the Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank. However, it is also seen that the aforesaid Advisory is being challenged in a separate writ petition which is still pending before this Court. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that since the legality of the aforesaid Advisory has already been challenged in a separate writ petition, this Court is not going to examine the legality or illegality of the aforesaid advisory note. 13. It is pertinent to mention herein that the transfer policy dated 29.03.2025, which was brought out on prior approval of the Board of Directors of the Respondent bank, in the very beginning of the same provides as follows: “The Transfer Policy referred to herein under is subject to the administrative exigencies of the Bank and Government guidelines issued from time to time in this regard. The norms for transfer of an officer employee are governed by Regulation 47 of UCO Bank Officers’ (Service) Regulations 1979. Having regard to this Regulation, the following broad operational guidelines are laid down.” 14. The aforesaid paragraph clearly reveals that the Transfer Policy for officers is in fact a broad guideline rather than any statute or rule having statutory force. These guidelines have been framed for administrative exigencies and are broad operational guidelines having no clear mandatory force. However, it cannot be denied that the transfers of the employees/officers of the Respondent Bank are ideally to be governed by such a policy of the Bank, which has been created at the behest of the Respondent bank only. 15. By way of filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition, the Respondent bank has clearly denied the contention of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been transferred due to the issuance of the Advisory dated 18.06.2025, rather they have asserted that the Petitioner has been transferred within the Center only in the exigencies of the Bank’s requirements and that it is after completion of three (3) years’ normal retention period. The other stand of the bank in the Affidavit is that the Bank has the power as per the Transfer Policy itself to transfer an officer before the normal retention period of three (3) years, which has been specifically provided in sub-clause (iv) of clause 12.3 of the Transfer Policy, which permits the transfer of an officer due to exigencies of the Bank. 16. This court has considered the contentions of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has actually been transferred before completion of the retention period of three (3) years as well as after the time period prescribed for effecting the transfer every year. Though the aforesaid contention of the Petitioner may be correct factually but this Court is not agreeable to the argument that only because the Petitioner was transferred out of the turn, there is a violation of any statutory provision of law. Since the Transfer Policy is only advisory in nature, whereas the statute governing the service conditions of the employees/officers of the Respondent bank, which is UCO Bank Officers’ (Service) Regulations 1979, and the same provides for the transfer of an officer to any office or branch of the Bank or to any place in India, in the absence of any apparent mala fide or biasness on the part of the Respondent bank, a transfer which has been made just a few days before the completion of the normal retention period of three (3) years cannot be termed as illegal. 17. This court has also considered the contention of the Petitioner that a class within a class has been created by the aforesaid Advisory dated 18.06.2025. However, this Court did not find any force in the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as the existing Transfer Policy specifically provides for certain protections/exemptions, which are being availed by such office bearers. Therefore, by providing some protections/exemptions to the Office Bearers of the Bank due to their holding of certain posts in the Union/Association cannot be termed as creating a class within a class without any forceful basis for saying so. It seems the Advisory has been issued only for the purpose of administrative exigencies or for the needs of the Bank at that point of time. It seems the Advisory has been issued only for the purpose of administrative exigencies or for the needs of the Bank at that point of time. Therefore, the mere transfer of certain Office Bearers of the Union of the Respondent Bank cannot be termed per se as creating a different class and thereby, discriminating them, including the Petitioner. 18. The Petitioner’s further argument that he being a top performer, he should not have been transferred as a non-performer. This Court finds this submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is not relevant in the case, as there is neither any case nor any assertion nor any stand from the Respondent Bank that the Petitioner was transferred because of his non-performance. The consistent stand of the Respondent Bank is that the Petitioner has been transferred only due to exigencies of the requirements of the Bank. 19. This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and now wishes to discuss and appreciate the law and principles laid down in the matters of transfer, wherein judicial review is permitted. In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. S. L. Abbas , reported in 1993 4 SCC 357 , it has been clearly observed and held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the scope of the judicial review in a case of transfer is only available when there is a clear violation of a statutory provision or the transfer is affected by mala fide. Non-observations of executive instructions do not confer a legally enforceable right to an employee holding a transferable post. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid case is extracted herein below: “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 ....” 20. In another case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the government on the subject ....” 20. In another case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. N. P. Thomas , reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 704, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the interference by the court in an order of transfer on the instance of an employee holding a transferable post without any violation of statutory provision is not permissible. 21. While observing the scope of judicial review, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. K. Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 98 held 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 mala fide 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 of transfer must be eschewed. It was further held that the evidence required to prove such a transfer is prejudicial, and in the absence thereof, interference is not warranted. 22. On the background of the aforesaid principles laid down in the judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, if the instant case is examined, then there is no such biasness or mala fide action that could be traceable from the action of the Respondent Bank in the transfer of the Petitioner. It is seen that though the transfer has been made a few days before the normal retention period, the Transfer Policy itself provides for such out of turn transfers in the exigencies of the Bank’s requirements. Therefore, no illegality could be fixed to the transfer, which was caused before the completion of the normal retention period of three (3) years, if the same is done in absence of malafide and biasness. Though the Petitioner’s Counsel has, in fact, challenged and assailed the Advisory dated 18.06.2025 and contended that his transfer actually has been caused by the aforesaid Advisory, the clear stand of the Respondent Bank is that the aforesaid transfer has not been made on the basis of the aforesaid Advisory dated 18.06.2025. Though the Petitioner’s Counsel has, in fact, challenged and assailed the Advisory dated 18.06.2025 and contended that his transfer actually has been caused by the aforesaid Advisory, the clear stand of the Respondent Bank is that the aforesaid transfer has not been made on the basis of the aforesaid Advisory dated 18.06.2025. This Court has also perused the Transfer Order dated 21.06.2025, issued by the General Manager, Guwahati, zonal office, UCO Bank and other relevant documents brought on record, however, no indication could be traced that the transfer was carried out due to the issuance of the aforesaid Advisory dated 18.06.2025. Further, this Court did not find any materials which really point fingers at the Respondent Bank for acting in a biased manner or with any mala fide intention against the Petitioner. 23. In view of the stand taken by the Respondent Bank which seems to be convincing to this Court and in the absence of any clear mala fide on the Bank’s part, and in absence of any averments regarding any violation of any statutory provisions or violation of the UCO Bank Officers’ (Service) Regulations 1979 by the Respondent Bank in the transfer of the Petitioner, this court finds no merit in the instant writ petition. 24. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed and the interim order so passed on 27.06.2025 stands vacated. 25. Writ Petition disposed of.