The court held that conditions for inter-district transfers must align with established rules and precedents, without imposing new restrictions that conflict with judicial interpretations.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Last Grade Service Special Rules, 1966 - Rule 17(d) - Inter-District Transfer - Petitioner, a Process Server, challenged refusal of transfer application due to not completing five years of service in the category sought - Court found that procedural adherence in permitting transfers was inconsistent with established norms - Application under consideration must align with prior judgments and administrative orders - No mandatory minimum service requirement in category for transfer; only eligibility based on total service is supported - Court directed respondents to consider the transfer application without conditions imposed by subsequent orders. (Paras 1, 2, 22, 23)

(B) Administrative Authority - Court established that the High Court retains administrative control over transfers, and rules must be consistent with prior judicial interpretations to uphold fairness and non-discrimination. (Paras 19, 20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, after serving since 2017 in various capacities, applied for an Inter-District Transfer that was denied based on new memoranda requiring five years in the current role, conflicting with previous judgments and rules.

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the application should be evaluated based on rules effective at the time of submission and prior judgment guidance, impacting fairness obligations under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Issues: The court addressed the valid criteria for assessing transfer applications and the interplay between existing rules and new administrative orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfer policies should align with the operational terms of existing rules, considering precedents and established employee rights.

Result: Writ petition allowed directing consideration of the transfer application without enforcing the five-year rule.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a native of Udayanapuram in Kottayam District and who is now working as Process Server in Sub Court, Tirur, seeks to direct respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P7 transfer application submitted by the petitioner without insisting for completing five years in the category to which transfer is sought.

2. The petitioner states that he joined service in the Last Grade Service as Attender Grade-II in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur which is in Malappuram District on 10.02.2017. The petitioner was promoted as Office Attendant Grade-I on 20.02.2018, as Court Keeper Grade-II on 14.09.2018 and as Court Keeper Grade-I on 16.03.2019. Later, the petitioner was promoted as Process Server on 16.03.2019. The petitioner is now working as such in Sub Court, Tirur in Malappuram District. The petitioner has rendered five years of service as a Last Grade Service Employee.

3. The petitioner states that he is governed by the Last Grade Service Special Rules, 1966. Applications of Last Grade Employees for Inter-District Transfer were considered under the provisions of Rule 17(d) until 1980 without any conditions. As the Inter-District Transfers affect the right of PSC candidates, the Government made a stipulation that a person recruited from districtwise rank list will not be transferred to another District before completion of five years in the District of appointment. A relaxation was made to the effect that any employee who wants any transfer from the District of recruitment to any other District will have to get approval from the Council of Ministers. It was also stipulated that only 10% of the vacancies arising in the District in a year in the category in a Department will be filled by Inter-District Transfer.

4. The petitioner states that the basic criteria to be fulfilled for considering an employee for Inter-District Transfer is to complete five years service and to take juniormost rank in another District without reverting to entry cadre. The 1^st respondent as per Ext.P3 letter dated 04.02.2020 clarified that an employee working in a promoted post in Last Grade Service can be granted Inter-District Transfer to another unit in the same Department after completing five years service in the District of recruitment without being reverted to entry cadre. Unfortunately, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court of Kerala, without following Government Orders, is still insisting for reverting the Process Servers to the entry cadre of Office Attendant Grade-II for Inter-District Transfer.

5. The petitioner states that certain Process Servers who applied for Inter-District Transfer challenged Ext.P5 memorandum filing W.P.(C) No.5067/2021. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by Ext.P6 judgment directing the respondents to consider the applications of the petitioners without reverting to entry cadre. The petitioner states that those petitioners were issued favourable orders transferring them to their concerned District without reverting them to entry cadre. The petitioner also applied for transfer to Ernakulam District in view of the medical condition of his parents. Ext.P7 application was made on 22.04.2022. Surprisingly, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P8 OM dated 05.08.2022. One of the conditions stipulated in Ext.P8 was that applicants for Inter-District Transfers should satisfy qualifying service in the concerned post. In view of Ext.P8, unless the petitioner completes five years service as Process Server, his application for Inter-District Transfer will not be considered.

6. The petitioner argued that the second direction in Ext.P8 OM as regards qualifying service is contrary to Ext.P1 Special Rules and Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders. Ext.P7 transfer application of the petitioner has to be considered following the provisions contained in Rule 17(d) of the Special Rules. Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.5067/2021 is clear and the application of the petitioner has to be considered taking into account more th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 56502

The court held that conditions for inter-district transfers must align with established rules and precedents, without imposing new restrictions that conflict with judicial interpretations.

Cases Referred (1)