Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 348
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
NIHILKUMAR.E.U. – Appellant
Versus
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) 40969/2023
O.D.SIVADAS
Transfer of employees is an inherent administrative function lacking a legal right to specific postings, emphasizing public interest and efficiency.
Headnote:
Transfer - Employment - Various Acts and Sections - The court upheld the principle that transfer constitutes an inherent condition of service and employees lack an absolute right to a specific posting, emphasizing the importance of administrative discretion and the non-statutory nature of transfer guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a transfer order from North Parur to Chathannur, claiming it violated transfer norms and his seniority despite completing his incumbency period at North Parur.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the transfer order to be within the administrative discretion of the KSRTC, reiterating that such orders cannot be interfered with unless proven to be based on mala fides or statutory violations.
Issues: Whether the transfer order violated guidelines for seniority and incumbency and whether the transfer could be challenged under Article 226.
Ratio Decidendi: Transfer is a service condition and not an employee right. Interference is warranted only in cases of mala fides or statutory breaches.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with a directive for consideration of the pending representation.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently employed as a Driver in the Kerala Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSRTC') and is presently attached to the North Parur Depot. He has approached this Court impugning the transfer order issued by the respondents, transferring him from North Parur to Chathannur.
2. The petitioner asserts that he commenced his employment with the KSRTC as a Driver in the year 2013. Throughout his tenure, he was transferred to various units, and finally, he was posted at North Parur on 8.11.2019 and he has been working in the same Depot since then. He asserts that as he has worked outside the home unit for more than 5 years, he has completed his incumbency period and is, therefore, entitled to get a transfer to his home unit.
3. It is stated that in violation to Ext.P1 transfer norms, the respondent corporation has issued the General Transfer order, by which the petitioner was transferred from North Parur to Chathannor as per Ext P2. It is stated that the transfer order is unsustainable under the law. Challenging the same, Ext.P3 representation was submitted before the 2nd respondent.
He also contends that while transferring the petitioner to Chathannor, the seniority of the petitioner in the Circle has not been considered. It is stated that there are many incumbents who have not even completed the incumbency period, are continuing in the North Parur unit, and that the petitioner has been transferred without considering his one year of service rendered in stations of more than 300 Kms. The petitioner states that if the transfer order is given effect, serious injustice would be caused. Highlighting his grievances, the petitioner is stated to have preferred Ext.3 representation before the 2nd respondent. His grievance is that no action has been taken to date.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the contentions advanced by the petitioner. The following contentions are raised:
a) Transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no right to be posted at a particular place.
b) Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or is mala fide in nature, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same.
c) Guidelines for transfer are not statutory, and mere violation of the guidelines will not be a reason for interfering with the order of transfer.
d) The appointments in the Corporation are done on a State-wide basis and therefore, the proportion of geographical requirement and staff availability is not uniformly distributed. As the Corporation is entrusted with the duty of providing a secure, efficient, and properly coordinated system of road transport service, they are fully empowered to deploy its employees all over the State.
5. Sri. O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions in the writ petition.
6. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel appearing for the KSRTC, submitted that the Corporation is one of the largest employers in the State with as many as 24,000 employees, out of which about 2200 employees are on illegal leave. It is stated that to fulfill the duty effectively, the corporation deploys its employees on a work arrangement basis to those units where there is a shortage of employees, to avoid hindrance while operating service. It is on account of administrative exigencies and to streamline the operations that a general transfer order has been issued, which affects almost 4000 personnel. According to the learned counsel, the majority of Conductors who are working in the KSRTC are from the northern part of Kerala, and the majority of drivers are from the southern part. It is submitted that for administrative exigencies and to accede to the long pending request of various employees who are working out of their home unit, the general transfer order was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court inBabu V State of Kerala1, and it is arg
