Order of the Government dated 11-10-2004, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P1, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The text of the order runs as following:

“Smt. Mariya Lucy. P.R., Deputy Director, Department of Toursim, Kottayam and Smt. P.K. Vijayakumari, Deputy Director, Ramanilayam, Thrissur is mutually transferred with immediate affect.”

Smt. P.K. Vijayakumari is the petitioner herein. The other officer, referred to in Ext.P1, is the third respondent. The petitioner submits that there was no request for mutual transfer and the norms authorized her to continue at Thrissur for a period of five years, and over and above, it was mala fide motive that such transfer is brought about.

2. Smt. P.V. Asha, counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it was a case where the petitioner had been working in different stations and on promotion as Deputy Director only with effect from 10-11-2000 she had been posted at Thrissur. During the period concerned, she had been given the additional charge of Deputy Director of Palakkad and Malappuram. While she was undergoing casual leave, without any previous information, the third respondent had come and assumed charge as Deputy Director at Thrissur displacing the petitioner.

3. The contentions are that (1) there was no request for transfer, requiring a mutual transfer; (2) there was no public interest involved and (3) the norms had been unduly violated. Her legitimate expectation as a member of Scheduled Caste community for continuing for a minimum period of five years had been violated and the order has disrupted her family life. Further, the third respondent had come to be promised as Deputy Director only in October, 2003 and she is junior to the petitioner and normally postings are given in important stations taking into account, the seniority and experience. The circumstances that the third respondent could obtain a transfer even before completing one year at Kottayam, according to the petitioner, shows that there was undue influence exerted.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Government wherein the stand taken is that the petitioner was given posting at Kottayam, taking notice of her experience as well as her advantage. Activities of the Department centering Kottayam district was developing because if proximity to the tourist spots and an experienced hand like the petitioner was necessary there. Also it was to her native place and the transfer need not been viewed as on given way of punishment or inconvenience.

5. The expression ‘mutual transfer’, according to the Government, only indicated that no others had been involved. There was no request from either of the officers for a transfer and it was only by way of administrative exigencies. According to the Government, the claim of the petitioner to continue for a period beyond three years in one station was never recognized as the general principle. There was also no extraneous or irrelevant considerations ever.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent also. She contends that there was never a request made by her for a transfer; she belongs to Alappuzha district and now that she had come to Thrissur, show may to continue there as she had changed her life style because of the above shifting.

7. In view of the interim orders, the files and confidential records had been called for. A cursory glance does not reveal that the shifting as above was because of any undisclosed reasons. Therefore, the suggestion of the third respondent that there were allegations against the petitioner cannot be true.

8. As matters presently stand, the only sphere of enquiry appears to be about the right of the petitioner for the benefit of five year tenures as per the norms. Guidelines are prescribed by the Government Order dated 05-05-1990. The minimum tenure policy of 10-09-2004 also have left such orders in tact so far as they deal with SC/ST officers. The claim is that being a member of Scheduled