Judicial interference in employee transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's discretion prevails.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This writ appeal is filed under section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 27677 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

2. The appellant is presently working as “Sambandhy” at Chittoor Sree Krishnaswamy Temple under the management of the 1^st respondent Cochin Devaswom Board. By Ext.P1 order dated 29.07.2024, issued by the 2^nd respondent Devaswom Commissioner, the appellant was transferred to Arikanniyoor Temple, which according to the appellant is more than 85 kms away from his present working place. According to the appellant, he filed Ext.P2 complaint against the Secretary of the Temple Advisory Committee of Chittoor Sree Krishnaswamy Temple, alleging an offence under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The accused in that complaint is an influential person and he caused the issuance of Ext.P1 transfer order. The appellant claims that he is a native of Alappuzha and has been suffering from perforation of the left ear and allergic rhinitis. He underwent surgery in the month of August 2022. He submitted Ext.P3 request dated 26.07.2023, seeking transfer to some other temples having less blowing of Conch, considering his illness. The transfer of the appellant is against Ext.P4 Government Order dated 25.02.2017 bearing G.O.(P)No.3/2017/P&ARD. The appellant is getting a salary of Rs.22,000/- only and he has to look after his aged parents. If the transfer is effected, it will adversely affect the appellant. Raising these contentions, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 transfer order dated 29.07.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent.

3. By the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that the appellant was transferred at his request. However, the learned Single Judge permitted the appellant to again approach the competent authority to transfer him to a nearby place, if he is so advised.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Devaswom Board.

5. It is trite that whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division, etc, are matter for the employer to consider, depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is the employer who knows best where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his or her duties for the establishment. The inconveniences caused to the employee and his family consequent to the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. Generally, the Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere in the orders of transfer of an employee issued by the employer, for administrative reasons, as it will adversely affect the smooth functioning of that institution. The circumstance under which the Court can interfere with the orders of transfer is laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in several judgments.

6. In Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357 the Apex Court held thus:

“Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.” (emphasis supplied)

7. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 the Apex Court held thus:

“It is by now well-s