The 1st petitioner is working as Senior Manager at the Kodungallur Branch of the 1st respondent Bank. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner is working as Manager at the Chavakkad Branch of the said Bank. By Ext.P2 proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.6.2015, the 1st petitioner is ordered to be transferred to Mysore SME Branch of the said Bank. Similarly, by Ext.P3 proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 20.6.2015, the 2nd petitioner is ordered to be transferred to Gudugalele Branch of the said Bank, under Mysore Circle. It is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 orders of transfer, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the said orders of transfer, and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 3 to either retain them at their present stations or to transfer them to a branch or office of the Bank near to the places where their families are presently residing. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Bank to evolve a comprehensive transfer policy or norms in respect of the transfer of its female employees, including Managers and Senior Managers, in the light of Ext.P1 Government of India directives, within a stipulated time frame.

2. According to the petitioners, the Government of India have issued Ext.P1 letter dated 8.8.2014 addressed to the Chairman of all Public Sector Banks, advising them to frame a policy on transfer of female employees, in order to minimise their hardship. In Ext.P1 it was decided, among other things, to accommodate, as far as possible, placement/transfer of married female employee, on her request, at a place where her husband is stationed or as near as possible to that place or vice versa, in order to avoid a genuine hardship or a feeling of insecurity, when placed/transferred away from her husband. Now, by Exhibits P2 and P3, the petitioners are under orders of transfer to branches at Mysore, which is more than 400kms. away from their respective hometown.

3. The 1st petitioner would contend that, she has only 5 years to retire. Her mother aged 86 years is ailing and there is no one else to look after her. Her husband aged 61 years is sick and he is not in a position to take care of the affairs of her aged mother. Further, the 1st petitioner herself is suffering from various ailments and it is difficult for her to undertake long journeys. She has also produced Ext.P4 medical certificate in order to show the nature of ailment of her mother.

4. The 2nd petitioner would contend that, she has only less than 6 years to retire. Her mother aged 83 years requires regular and constant attention, as she is suffering from all sorts of physical weakness. Her husband had undergone bypass surgery and he requires regular care and protection. Further, the 2nd petitioner herself is suffering from various ailments and it is difficult for her to undertake long journeys. She has also produced Ext.P5 medical certificate in order to show the nature of ailment of her husband.

5. On coming to know about the proposal for transfer, the 1st petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 17.6.2015 before the 3rd respondent. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 18.6.2015 before the said respondent. In Exts.P6 and P7 representations, the petitioners prayed for a sympathetic consideration of their case. According to the petitioners, the 1st respondent Bank issued individual transfer orders, which form part of the general transfer for the year 2015, with the oblique motive of suppressing the details of the employees who were given undue privileges. Ext.P8 is a list of 10 officers, including the petitioners herein, who have been transferred under 'Inter-circle transfers-2015-outward'. Though the petitioners have submitted Exts.P6 and P7 representations, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P2 and P3 orders of transfer, without considering those representations in the proper perspective and in the ligh