Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J
MUKTHA K NAIR – Appellant
Versus
AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA – Respondent
WA 151/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not mentioned
For the Respondents: Not mentioned
Judicial interference in transfer orders is limited; employers have discretion unless there is mala fides or statutory violation.
Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Transfer of employee - The appellant challenged the transfer order from Thiruvananthapuram to Calicut, claiming violation of transfer policy. The court held that the employer has the prerogative to transfer employees for administrative reasons. (Paras 2-18)
(B) Transfer Policy - Clauses 4.6, 4.18, 7.1, and 10.1 - The court found that none of the cited clauses were violated in the appellant's transfer, as there was no post available at the original location and seniority of others was considered. (Paras 12-17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to Calicut International Airport, which she claimed was in violation of the transfer policy.
Findings of Court:
The transfer was upheld as valid, with no grounds for judicial interference established.
Issues: The court addressed whether the transfer was in violation of the policy and if the appellant had a legal right to remain at her post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that transfer decisions are within the employer's discretion and judicial interference is limited to cases of mala fides or statutory violations.
Result: The writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employee challenges transfer order on grounds of policy violation. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the transfer. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's observations on the applicability of transfer policy clauses. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the writ appeal, affirming the transfer's validity. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ appeal is filed under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36194 of 2024, challenging the judgment dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking various reliefs by way of writ of certiorari and mandamus against Ext.P4 transfer order by which she was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to Calicut International Airport, was dismissed.
2. The appellant joined service as a Junior Assistant on 22.05.2006 at Calicut International Airport, on compassionate grounds. She was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram in the year 2009. At present, she has been serving as Senior Superintendent in the HR Department at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. According to the appellant, she has been living with her aged parents who are suffering from various ailments. She submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 4th respondent Regional Executive Director, Airports Authority of India on 18.06.2024 seeking her retention at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. Since no action was taken in Ext.P2, she again submitted Ext.P3, a fresh representation dated 03.07.2024 before the 4th respondent for the very same purpose. Despite submitting Exts.P2 and P3 representations, as per Ext.P4 order dated 26.09.2024, the appellant has been transferred to Calicut International Airport. Again, the appellant submitted Ext.P5 representation before the 4th respondent seeking her retention at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport till 31.07.2025. As per Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024, the 5th respondent Assistant General Manager (HR), rejected the request of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36194 of 2024. After considering the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that when no post is available to accommodate her and six persons senior to her have been retained therein, the appellant cannot compel the Airports Authority to retrain her at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, which has been taken over by a private company. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellant was transferred to the nearest airport, and since she holds a transferable post, she can be transferred and posted at any of the airports under the Airports Authority of India.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Airports Authority of India.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's transfer was ordered in violation of Ext.P6 AAI transfer policy. The learned counsel relied on clauses 4.6, 4.18, 7.1 and 10.1 in Ext.P6 transfer policy, claiming them to be in favour of the appellant.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Airports Authority of India would submit that Thiruvananthapuram International Airport has been taken over by a private company, and at the time of taking over, an option was given to the employees either to work under Airports Authority of India or under the new private company. The appellant chose to work under the Airports Authority of India. There are only 6 posts of Senior Superintendent (HR) available under the Airports Authority of India at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport. Therefore, six persons who are senior to the appellant holding the post of Senior Superintendent (HR) have been retained at Thiruvananthapuram Internatio
