Transfers in employment can only be contested legally on explicit statutory violations or proofs of malice, neither of which were demonstrated by the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a Senior Assistant presently working in Electrical Section, Chavara under the respondents, has filed this writ petition challenging her transfer from Chavara to Beypore as per Ext.P2 order. Petitioner submitted an appeal against Ext.P2 and on the basis of direction from this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P(C)No.30009/2017, the Appeal Committee considered her appeal and rejected the same as per Ext.P6 order. This petition is filed challenging the orders of transfer as well as rejection of appeal.

2. Petitioner claims that her contentions are not considered properly by the Appellate Committee. There is a further contention that being a female employee, she was liable to be accommodated in a nearby station instead of posting her to a station 300 km away. It is also her case that she has not completed three years in the present station, while others with more than 20 years stayed in the station are allowed to be continued. According to the petitioner, the transfer in the midst of the academic year is not permissible and it seriously affects her. It is also pointed out that different cut-off dates are fixed in different stations which is highly discriminatory.

3. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner is already relieved and the appeal submitted by the petitioner was already considered in Ext.P6, in accordance with law.

4. In Ext.P6 order, the Appellate Committee has found that 1248 Senior Assistants were transferred on 02.09.2017 and different cut-off dates are adopted for the purpose of transferring different stations in order to accommodate a valid request from another station by transferring out persons who have put in continuous combined service of three years or more in a particular station. The cut-off date of each station is fixed considering various factors such as posting strength, working strength, eligible transfer in, eligible transfer out etc. As a result, the number of posts in one station where more number of offices would be very high compared to another station, where number of offices would be less and these factors will vary from station to station. Therefore, it is stated that a uniform cut-off date is impracticable throughout the state.

5. The only contention raised in this writ petition as against the transfer is violation of guidelines. It is settled law that this Court cannot interfere with orders of transfer, except when there is violation of statutory rules or proved malafides, or when it is issued by an incompetent authority. None of these circumstances are available in this case. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.