Transfer Guidelines Involving Female Employees Lack Statutory Force and Cannot Be Claimed as a Matter of Right

The appellant, a Manager at Union Bank of India since 2013, challenged her transfer from Delhi to Mumbai dated 08.06.2024

She sought retention in Delhi on the grounds of being unmarried and needing to care for her aging parents with medical conditions

Her representation was rejected by the Bank on 08.12.2025, and a subsequent writ petition challenging the transfer was dismissed by a Single Judge on 21.01.2026

The appellant approached the Division Bench via this intra-court appeal, relying on a Ministry of Finance Circular dated 08.08.2014 and alleging discrimination compared to similarly situated employees

1. Whether the Circular dated 08.08.2014 grants a statutory right to unmarried female employees to be posted at their place of choice

2. Whether the transfer order was vitiated by discrimination or violation of statutory rules

The court applied the principle that transfer is an exigency of service and an inherent part of "all India transferable liability" for bank employees

It relied on the precedent established in Shilpi Bose (Mrs) v. State of Bihar (1991), which mandates that a transfer order can only be challenged if it violates statutory provisions or is founded on proven mala fides

Furthermore, administrative circulars providing for accommodations "as far as possible" do not carry statutory force and are subject to administrative exigencies

The Court reasoned that the Circular dated 08.08.2014 is non-statutory and its language ("as far as possible") allows the Bank Management significant latitude based on administrative requirements

Regarding the plea of discrimination, the Court held that an employee cannot claim retention at a specific post as a matter of right, as the Management must prioritize exigencies of administration

The Court observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate any violation of a mandatory statutory rule or provide evidence of mala fides

Since the appellant accepted a job with all-India liability, the court found no legal ground to interfere with the employer's discretionary power to transfer staff

The Division Bench expressed complete agreement with the Single Judge's order and dismissed the appeal and all pending applications

The transfer order dated 08.06.2024 was upheld