JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The scope of judicial review in matters of transfer in service is well settled. Interference in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed as transfer is normally an incidence of service which is made to meet the exigencies of the authority. Ultimately, it is the prerogative of the authority to determine and decide as to how the services of an employee can be best utilised. At the same time, there are certain well-defined exceptions in which such order of transfer can be the subject matter of interference in exercise of powers of judicial review. The exceptions are broadly violation of the statutory rules or norms governing the service conditions, including transfer and secondly, the element of mala-fide which might have played a role in issuing such transfer order. Interference is also warranted in certain cases of frequent transfer or transfer being done at the behest of persons who are not directly part of the system.

2. With this backdrop, let us now come to the facts of the case in hand.

3. The petitioner has put to challenge orders of transfer dated 25.08.2020 as well as 22.09.2020 issued by the authorities of the State Bank of India (Bank) and for a direction to allow him to join at Dadara, Kamrup (R) as per order dated 28.05.2020 or Raha as per order 18.09.2020. The petitioner is also agreeable that alternatively, he may be posted in any place near Guwahati so that he can take proper care of his ailing mother, who also suffers from a disability.

4. The petitioner is a Deputy Manager (Scale-II) and was posted at the Nagaon Main Branch of the Bank in August, 2018. While serving there, an office order dated 28.05.2020 was issued promoting the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Branch Manager (Scale-III) and transferring him to Dadara Branch. However, on the alleged ground of paucity of officers, the petitioner was not released from the Nagaon Branch. However, within a short span, another order dated 25.08.2020 was issued modifying the earlier order of transfer and transferring the petitioner to Ziro in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner immediately submitted a representation dated 26.08.2020 for modification of the transfer order followed by filing of a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 3632/2020. Incidentally, the Bank authorities had also acted in the meantime and vide order dated 18.09.2020 modified the impugned order dated 25.08.2020 and posted the petitioner at Raha Branch as the Branch Manager. Under such circumstances, the earlier writ petition, namely, W.P. (C) No. 3632/2020 was withdrawn with liberty vide order of this Court dated 21.09.2020. However, even before joining at the new place of posting i.e. Raha, the Bank authorities issued another order of transfer dated 22.09.2020 whereby the earlier order dated 18.09.2020 was cancelled and the petitioner was once again posted at Ziro in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner had again approached the authorities by submitting two representations whereby the ill-health and disability of his aged mother were highlighted. As no action was seen to be taken, the present writ petition was filed and this Court vide order dated 30.09.2020 while issuing notice came to a prima-facie finding of arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the authorities and accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.09.2020 was stayed until further order. It appears that the Bank authorities had filed I.A. (C) No. 1996/2020 for modification of the order dated 30.09.2020. However, the said application was dismissed with the observation that no interference of the stay order was called for and also further observed that any modification/alteration of the stay order would render the writ petition infructuous.

5. I have heard Shri T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri P.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the p