( 1 ) IN both these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the transfer order dated 2/3- 7. 1999, whereby the employees-officers of the Bank of Baroda have been visited with inter-zonal transfer and directing the respondents to implement properly and uniformly in true spirit the transfer policy Annexure-B.

( 2 ). The say of the petitioners is that the petitioners are employees, namely, officers of respondent-bank, which was nationalised in the year 1969-1970; that Bank of Baroda (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as "regulation") came to be framed; that regulation 47 provides that "every officer is liable for transfer to any office or branch of the Bank to any place in India"; that the respondent-Bank framed a policy for transfer, taking into account various guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time, relating to job rotation, rural/semi-urban transfers etc. ; that the respondent-Bank initiated the exercise of effecting promotion from middle management Grade/scale-II to middle management Grade/scale-III; that the relevant extracts of Central Office Circular No. CO:br:86/187 dated 3. 12. 1994 provides that "on promotion, such officers shall be straightway posted to a rural/semi-urban branch and confirmation of their promotion to MMG/s-III will be subject to their completing the requisite rural/semi-urban service. Officers who are agreeable to the above conditions may apply in the prescribed application form, which may be obtained from respective branch/office. "; that the respondent-Bank violated the transfer policy and not uniformly adhered to the instructions/directions, as contained in various circulars, issued by the bank for effecting promotions; that inter- zonal transfers are to be effected only on promotion. The officers who have foregone their promotions on the ground of constraints in mobility, are now being transferred out of Zone on the criteria of longest stay - which is not at all contemplated in the Transfer Policy; that the inter-zonal transfers on promotion are not uniformly followed in the whole of respondent-Bank and the officers-employees posted in the State of Gujarat and in the Greater Bombay have been delinked from the General Transfer Plan; that to accommodate the favoured officers, the greater Bombay has been declared as deficit zone and the officers posted in that zone are not posted out of zone after promotion; that Regulation 47 has to be controlled and guided by the Transfer Policy, whereas the respondents are invoking Regulation 47 arbitrarily, without any rational and to harass and victimise the officers-employees.

( 3 ). It will be seen from the above that the impugned transfer is not challenged on the ground of malafides or arbitrariness but the same is alleged to be in violation of the Transfer Policy by resort to Regulation 47 without on rational basis.

( 4 ). It is submitted by Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned transfer is an inter-zone transfer not on promotion; that the same is violative of the transfer policy; that the petitioners did not appear in the test for promotion; that Regulation 47 is controlled by the transfer policy and the same does not give untrammelled right to the Bank and that Regulation 47 can not be resorted to independent of the transfer policy but the same is controlled by the transfer policy. It is submitted by Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the respondent that the instances cited in the transfer policy for the transfer of the employees are not exhaustive; that Regulation 47 will apply irrespective of above for transfer of the employee/officer; that even those employees/officers who have not opted for promotion, can be transferred under Regulation 47 and that Regulation 47 would prevail; that employees/officers who are transferred under the policy would be the cases of transfer on promotion and other instances cited therein