Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Suresh Babu R. S/o N.B. Rajagopal - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
W.A. No. 722 of 2025
Decided On : 19-05-2025
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ appeal against transfer order - The appellant challenged the transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Idukki, asserting lack of authority for the transfer without shifting the post - The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, leading to this appeal. (Paras 1, 5, 14)
(B) Transfer of Employees - The prerogative of the employer to transfer employees is upheld, with judicial interference being limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations - The court emphasized that transfer is an incident of service and not a right of the employee. (Paras 7, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Senior Technical Assistant, was transferred without the post being officially shifted, despite undergoing surgery. The transfer was contested on grounds of authority and procedural adherence.
Findings of Court:
The court found no mala fides or statutory violations in the transfer order, affirming the employer's prerogative.
Issues: The main issues included the authority of the employer to transfer and the necessity of shifting the post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the employer's authority to transfer is paramount unless proven otherwise, and the transfer was ratified by subsequent orders.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
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. 24532 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 transfer order dated 01.02.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent transferring the appellant from Thiruvananthapuram to Ramakkalmedu in Idukki district and Ext.P9 order dated 02.07.2024 by which the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P7 representation dated 15.05.2024 submitted by the appellant against Ext.P1. The appellant also sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit him to continue as Senior Technical Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent at Thiruvananthapuram. As per the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2025, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this writ appeal.
2. The case of the appellant, in brief, is that he joined service as a Technician under the 2nd respondent on 12.07.1995. In the year 2021, he was promoted as Sub-Engineer (now redesignated as Senior Technical Assistant). As per Ext.P1 transfer order dated 01.02.2024, he was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Ramakkalmedu in Idukki district. According to the appellant, the 3rd respondent has no authority or power to shift a post from the Headquarters to another district. The post of Senior Technical Assistant was created based on Ext.P2 order dated 25.02.2021 issued by the 1st respondent on the basis of Ext.P3 report related to restructuring of the 2nd respondent issued in the year 2019. It is further contended by the appellant that he cannot be transferred out of Thiruvananthapuram without shifting the post of Senior Technical Assistant. He submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 15.05.2024 before respondents 1 and 3 and then approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.19544 of 2024 challenging Ext.P1. By Ext.P8 judgment dated 06.06.2024, this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders in Ext.P7 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and till such time the appellant was permitted to continue at Thiruvananthapuram. But by Ext.P9 order dated 02.07.2024, the 1st respondent rejected Ext.P7 representation. Ext.P9 order was issued relying on Ext.P10 letter dated 31.05.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent, and according to the appellant, in Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent requested the Government to shift the post occupied by the appellant to Idukki. Without passing an order to shift the post, it is not possible to transfer the appellant from Thiruvananthapuram to Idukki. Moreover, the appellant had undergone an open-heart surgery in March 2024, and this fact was also overlooked by the 3rd respondent while transferring him.
3. Respondents 2 and 3 filed a counter affidavit dated 18.07.2024 in the writ petition opposing the reliefs and producing Ext.R3(a) document.
4. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 30.09.2024 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition and producing Ext.R1(a) document.
5. After considering the rival contentions raised by the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition as said above and also directed the 2nd respondent to take an appropriate decision, if the appellant does not join his transferred place of posting within one week from the date of that judgment.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.
7. 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 ef
Judicial interference in employee transfers is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's prerogative prevails.
Transfer orders are within the employer's discretion and not subject to judicial review unless vitiated by mala fides or statutory violations.
Judicial interference in employee transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; otherwise, the employer's discretion prevails.
Transfer orders are a condition of service; courts will not interfere without proof of mala fides or statutory violations.
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited; transfers are administrative unless proven mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions.
Transfer of government employees is a condition of service; legal rights to remain at a specific post are not guaranteed unless statutory violations or mala fides are established.
Judicial review of transfer orders is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations; transfers are normal incidents of service.
Government servants have no vested right to remain posted at a particular place, and interference with transfer orders should be limited to cases of mala fides or violation of specific provisions.
Transfers of employees are service incidents and not subject to legal challenge without clear proof of mala fides or statutory violations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
