Transfer of government employees is an administrative prerogative; courts will only intervene in cases of malafides or statutory violations.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (for short 'the Tribunal'), filed OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 and the applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.849 of 2025 on the file of the very same Tribunal filed OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the impugned common order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications. For convenience, the parties and documents are referred in this judgment as they are referred in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.

2. The petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 was transferred to Palakkad as District Medical Officer (Health), vide Annexure A1 order dated 17.11.2023, while she was working in the cadre of Deputy Director, Directorate of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to continue at Palakkad for a period of three years. By Annexure A2 order dated 24.02.2025, she was transferred and posted as Additional District Medical Officer (Health), Ernakulam. The 3^rd respondent, who was working as District Programme Manager at National Health Mission, Palakkad, was promoted and posted in the place of the petitioner as District Medical Officer (Health) at Palakkad itself, consequent to the transfer of the petitioner to Ernakulam. The petitioner contends that since she has not completed three years in the present station, the 3^rd respondent, who is a fresh promotee, is liable to be posted wherever there is an open vacancy. Therefore, Annexure A2 order is illegal. By Annexure A2 transfer order, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025, who was working as Additional District Medical Officer (Health), Ernakulam, has been transferred to Idukki as Superintendent in the District Hospital, Idukki. Challenging the transfer order, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025 filed O.A.(EKM)No.338 of 2025 before the Tribunal, and the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 filed O.A.(EKM)No.342 of 2025. The Tribunal, by way of interim orders, stayed the transfer of the petitioners in both the original applications. Thereafter, the original applications were disposed of by a common order dated 18.03.2025 with a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the grievance of the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were heard on 08.04.2025 on behalf of the 1^st respondent and by Annexure A5 order dated 09.06.2025, their contentions were rejected. In that circumstance, the petitioners approached the Tribunal with the respective original applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 .

3. In O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025, the 1^st respondent filed a reply statement dated 25.06.2025. It is contended by the 1^st respondent that the General Transfer Guidelines contained in Para 7(ii) of G.O.(P) No.3/2017/P&ARD dated 25.02.2017 are strictly applicable to transfers made by the Head of the Department and authorities below the Head of the Department. The said order is not applicable in the cases where the Government is the appointing authority. The Deputy Director post is a higher post in the Health Services Department, and when officers working in this post are transferred for administrative convenience, it is not right to raise arguments that they have not completed three years in the present station. As per Rule 32(b) of Part II KS&SSR, the power to appoint and transfer the Deputy Director is vested with the Government, who is the appointing authori