IMPORTANT POINT
The spouse ground for transfer can only be utilized once in a ten-year block, and the petitioner had already availed this benefit, thus the transfer was upheld.

ORDER :

Pulla Karthik, J.

Since the lis in both these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

2. W.P.No.18536 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief :

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned transfer orders in circular No.PER/2024-25/34, dt. 10-07-2024 of the 1st respondent without following their own transfer policy dt. 31-8-2016 Guideline No.5.5 and also circular dt. 8-8-2014 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, by transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad-I Region to Signapur Branch, Mancherial Region, is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, non application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving preference under spouse category by posting in any of the existing or clear vacancies which is nearer to Hyderabad or Hyderabad-II Region and pass…”

3. W.P.No.23815 of 2022 is filed seeking the following relief :

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned transfer orders in circular No.PER/2022-23/21, dt. 13-05-2022 of the 1st respondent without following the then transfer policy dt. 31-8-2016 in item No.5.5 and also circular dt. 8-8-2014 by the Ministry of Finance, Department of financial Services, by transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad-I Region to RBO Adilbad District, is as highly arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, non application of mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also violation of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aisde the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving preference under spouse category by posting in any of the exiting or clear vacancies which is nearer to Hyderabad or Hyderabad-I Region and to pass…”

4. Heard Sri C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, and Sri Mujib Kumar Sadasivuni, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Grameena Bank, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

5. For the purpose of convince, W.P.No.18536 of 2024 is adjudicated hereunder.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Officer JMGS-I (Junior Management Grade Scale-I) in the respondent Bank on 24.04.2016 and was posted at Shamshabad Branch. While so, the respondents conducted a general transfer in the year 2019 and transferred the petitioner to Eliminedu Branch vide proceedings dated 13.08.2019 and since then, she has been working in the same place. Further, the petitioner’s husband is working as a Manager (E) at the office of the Chief General Manager (E), Khairatabad in Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which post is a non-transferrable one. While the things stood thus, the respondents took up transfers in the State in 2024 and as per the transfer guidelines, an employee can utilize the spouse ground once in every ten years in case their spouse is working either in State or Central Government departments. As such, when the transfers were taking place, the petitioner submitted her transfer request online on 22.04.2024 and 26.04.2024, under spouse and medical grounds, duly furnishing all the necessary details. However, without considering the same, the respondents have illegally transferred the petitioner from Eliminedu Branch (Hyderabad-I Region) to Signapur Branch in Mancherial Region, and the same is in violation of their own transfer policy.

7. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted her online application on 22.04.2024. However, du