Absence of Rigid Victimization Where Bank Offers Spouse-Postings Options to Alleviate Transfer Hardships.

The petitioner, an employee of State Bank of India (SBI) married to another bank employee posted in Patna, challenged her transfer to the Ranchi Zone.

This was the petitioner’s second writ petition; her first (C.W.J.C. No. 10090/2025) resulted in a direction for the Bank to reconsider her claim based on spouse-posting guidelines.

Following that order, the Bank issued a reasoned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure-P/1) denying retention in Patna but offering her and her husband three choices of posting in Jharkhand and Bihar respectively to ensure proximity.

The petitioner also filed an Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 1/2026) to quash a subsequent notice dated 05.02.2026 advising her to report for duty or face deemed resignation.

1. Whether the interlocutory application challenging the notice to report for duty can be entertained within a writ petition primarily challenging the transfer order.

2. Whether the Bank's order dated 30.07.2025, which denied retention in Patna but offered alternative choice-based postings, was legally sustainable and in compliance with the court's previous directions.

The court applied the principle of administrative discretion in matters of employee transfer and the specific "spouse-posting guidelines" of the Bank, which generally permit spouses to be posted at the same or nearby stations subject to administrative exigencies and availability of posts.

It also adhered to the doctrine of res judicata and procedural proprietary, noting that the merits of the transfer had already been tested in previous litigation (C.W.J.C. No. 10090/2025 and M.J.C. No. 2825/2025).

The Court first rejected I.A. No. 1 of 2026, finding that a challenge to an employment notice regarding unauthorized absence is a distinct cause of action from the transfer dispute and should be raised separately.

Regarding the main writ, the Court observed that the Bank had complied with the spirit of the previous judicial direction by issuing a reasoned order.

The Court found that the Bank’s offer—allowing both the petitioner and her husband to select three choice locations—was a fair exercise of administrative power meant to balance the petitioner's marital rights with the Bank's operational needs.

The Court noted that the petitioner could not remain "rigid" in her demand for Patna when the Bank provided options for adjacent locations in Bihar and Jharkhand.

It held that the Bank’s provision of optional posting choices was a reasonable accommodation.

The Court directed that the petitioner and her husband should file their choices of posting in Bihar and Jharkhand, and the Respondent-Bank shall post them at places nearest to each other.

I.A. No. 1 of 2026 was rejected.