The court emphasized the inherent right of the employer to transfer employees and the limited scope for interference by the court unless the transfer is vitiated by mala fides or made in violation of statutory provisions.

Paripoornan, J.

The petitioner, Shri.N. Venkitaramanan Potti, is the Santhikaran in the service of the Travancore Devaswom Board. In this original petition, he prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the second respondent-Devaswom Commissioner, Travancore Devaswom Board-transferring the petitioner from the Kannarikulangara Devaswom at North Paravur to the Koottala Devaswom, Mookkannurand Ext.P4 dated 16-5-1992 issued by the fourth respondent - Devaswom Sub Group Officer, Kannankulangara - purporting to relieve the petitioner from the Kannankulangara Devaswom. The petitioner also prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to allow him to continue to function as Santhikaran in the Kamiankulangara Devaswom at North Paravur. There are six respondents in this original petition. The first respondent is the Travancore Devaswom Board, the second respondent is the Commissioner of Devaswoms (Devaswom Commissioner), Travancore Devaswom Board, the third respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Devaswoms, North Paravur, the fourth respondent is the Devaswom Sub Group Officer, Kannankulangara, the fifth respondent is the Devaswom Sub Group Officer, Kothakulangara, Angamali, and the sixth respondent is Shri K.U: Krishnan Potti, Kannankulangara temple, North Paravur.

2. The petitioner avers that he has got 29 years of service as Santhikaran and he is the seniormost Santhikaran in the North Paravur Group. When he was posted as Santhikaran in Koottala Devaswom at Mookkannur, he filed Ext.P1 representation on 27-4-1992 before the first respondent praying that he may be transferred to Kannankulangara Devaswom, North Paravur or Markandeswaram Temple or Minor Iravipuram Devaswom in Thiruvaloor Sub Group or Sree Krishna Temple at Aluva as Santhikaran. The request was considered by first respondent Board and orders were issued on 29-4-1992. By Ext.P2 dated 5-5-1992, the second respondent transferred the petitioner to the Kannankulangara Devaswom. Shri Krishnan Potti, Santhikaran of the said temple (R6), was transferred to the Koottala Temple, Mookkannur. In other words, the petitioner and the sixth respondent were mutually transferred. The fifth respondent relieved the petitioner on 12-5-1992 from Koottala Temple at Mookkannur and issued Ext.PS letter dated 12-5-1992 informing the Sub Group Officer at Kothakulangara about the said fact. The petitioner states that he joined duty at Kannankulangara temple on 12-5-1992. Within four days, on 16-5-1992, the Devaswom Sub Group Officer in-charge, Kannankulangara, the fourth respondent, issued Ext.P4 proceedings relieving the petitioner from Kannankulangara Temple and informed that the sixth respondent is transferred from Kooltala temple at Mookkannur to Kannankulangara temple. In Ext.P4, the communication of the Devaswom Commissioner dated 15-5-1992 is referred as the basis of the said re-transfer. In this original petition, the main attack is against Ext.P4. The petitioner attacks the re-transfer effected by respondents 4 & 5 within a period of four days after the petitioner was transferred to the Kannankulangara Temple as per the orders o f the Board - Ext. P2 - as unreasonable and mala f ide. G rounds (2), (4), (6) and (7) of the original petition narrate the basis in which it is stated that Ext.P4 is unreasonable, mala fide and an arbitrary exercise of power. Grounds (2), (4), (6) and (7) of-the original petition are extracted herein below:

"2. The action of the second respondent in order in transfers of the petitioner and sixth respondent, undoing the transfers ordered as per Ext.Pl, within four days after it was issued, is mala fide. It is not an act done in the regular course of or with interests of proper administration of the temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board. It is done only with the object of conferring an undue favour on the sixth respondent, to enable him to continue in a place where he was working for the past more tha