The court established that transfer orders by competent authorities are valid unless shown to be irrational, and emphasized the need for compassionate consideration of medical grounds.

JUDGMENT

T.R. RAVI, J.

The petitioner who was working as Personal Secretary, CPMG/CMSE at the office of the 1st respondent at Vattiyoorkavu was transferred to the office of the Programme Director, ATSP at Veli. The order of transfer was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench ('Tribunal' for short) in O.A.No.632/2022. The Tribunal by Ext.P10 order dated 12.01.2023 has dismissed the Original Application refusing to interfere with the order of transfer. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. The petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the authority who issued the order of transfer was not competent and authorised to issue such orders, that the order is in the nature of punishment, since it was preceded by certain complaints made by the petitioner against certain officers, that the petitioner has a good service record and seniority and is not liable to be transferred and lastly that her husband is suffering from cancer and had to undergo a complex surgery in the throat and needed the petitioner to support him. As far as medical grounds were concerned, she had also made additional grounds that she was suffering from various ailments and is not able to travel by public transport for more than 10 minutes and that the place to which she is transferred is about 20 to 25 KMs away from her house.

3. The Tribunal found that the order has been issued by the Senior Administrative Officer with the approval of the competent authority and hence cannot be said to be an order without authority. Regarding the punitive nature, the Tribunal held that there is nothing in the order of transfer to indicate that it was issued as a punitive nature. The Tribunal also found that merely because a person has good service records, that does not take away the power of the competent authority to transfer an employee.

4. The Tribunal noticed that in support of medical grounds the petitioner had relied on Annexures A3 to A7 which covered the period from 2014 to 2020. The said documents related to the aliments of the petitioner's husband. Annexure A2 is an ultrasound scan report relating to the petitioner and Annexure A8 shows that the petitioner's son suffered a head injury in 2019. The Tribunal went on to consider the reason stated that long journey in public transport system will be difficult for the petitioner. The respondents had contended that distance between the two offices is only 14 Kms. Based on the above facts, the Tribunal concluded that the claim for medical grounds and the claim made on the basis of distance cannot be taken into account for the purpose of interfering with the order of transfer.

5. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , an order of transfer, the challenge against which was rejected by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction, can very rarely be interfered with. The exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under of the Constitution can only be to correct any illegality or irrationality or impropriety. No such situation arises here. The only aspect that may have to be addressed is whether the concerned authority ought to have considered the medical grounds more compassionately, which cannot again be a reason for interference at the hands of the High Court.

6. In the above circumstances, the challenge against the order of transfer and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, we may not be fully justified in leaving the case without making certain observations. We find that the medical grounds raised by the petitioner as to the terminal illness of her husband are not disputed in any manner. It is also a fact that the petitioner does not have long years of service left. In such circumstances, we would expect the competent authority to have a re-look into the order of transfer, solely on the medical ground, in a compassionate manner and consider whether the petitioner can be suitably posted in a location which causes