Transfer of employees is an incidence of service and the management has the discretion to decide who should work where in the best public interest and interest of administration. Mala fide must be proved and in the absence of evidence of mala fide, the court will not interfere with the transfer order.

( 1 ) BEFORE the 1st respondent-Management effected the impugned transfer transferring the petitioner from the branch of the Bank at Vijayawada to the branch office of the Bank at amalapuram on 5-11-1994, the petitioner was working as Special Assistant in the branch office at Vijayawada.

( 2 ) THE petition averments disclose that the petitioner joined the services of the bank as a Clerk and during the year 1992 he was working at the branch office at rajahmundry. While working at Rajahmundry, he sought permission of the branch Manager to prosecute Law studies at Rajahmundry and the Branch Manager granted the permission on 12-9-1992. On 19-9-1992 the petitioner was transferred to amalapuram, said to be the native place of the petitioner, and the petitioner joined at the branch office of Amalapuram on 21-9-1992. There, it is claimed that, he was elected as the Secretary of the Union of the employees. Again, on 29-10-1993 the petitioner was transferred to visakhapatnam and the petitioner joined there on 1-12-1993. Further, in the month of January, 1994 the petitioner was transferred to Vijayawada branch and he joined the duty at Vijayawada branch on 5-2-1994. It is stated that while working at vijayawada the petitioner was again elected as Organising Secretary of the union of employees. Then came the impugned transfer order dated 5-11-1994 transferring the petitioner from Vijayawada to Amalapuram branch.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has impleaded State bank of Hyderabad Staff Association as the 6th respondent to the Writ Petition. On service of notice the Bank Management has filed a vacate petition seeking vacation of the ex parte interim order passed by this Court earlier. On behalf of the 6th respondent-Association, both the secretary and the President of the association have also filed their respective counters. At this juncture, it may be noted that since the petitioner alleged that the impugned transfer was brought about at the behest of the President and Secretary of the 6th respondent Association, the 6th respondent-Association seems to have been arrayed as a party-respondent to the writ Petition.

( 4 ) IN the counter filed on behalf of the management it is averred that the transfer of the petitioner from Rajahmundry branch to Amalapuram branch was at his request. It is also alleged that the petitioner again sought for his transfer to Visakhapatnam. It is further stated that, in the meanwhile, on 4-2-1994 the petitioner was promoted as Special Assistant from the post of Head clerk and he was transferred to vijayawada. It is also claimed that the transfer order is not vindictive and it was not passed at the behest of the office bearers of the Trade Union. It is also claimed that since the petitioner was promoted to the post of Special Assistant, it became imperative and inevitable to transfer him to Amalapuram. It is claimed that Amalapuram being the native place of the petitioner, he cannot have any grievance in the matter. For all these reasons, the Management has prayed the court to reject the Writ Petition.

( 5 ) IN the counters filed on behalf of the President and Secretary of the 6th respondent Association it is claimed by both of them that they were not instrumental to transfer the petitioner from Vijayawada to Amalapuram and they did not bring any pressure on the management of the 1st respondent-Bank to effect the impugned transfer.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent-Bank for the management and the 6th respondent-Association.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival controversies raised in the Writ Petition, I think it is not necessary for this Court to refer to and consider the allegations made in respect of the transfers effected prior to january, 1994, because the petitioner did not choose to question the validity of those transfers before the Court. Starting from the month of January, 1994, it should be noted that, and over which, there is n