Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
PRASANTH KUMAR G – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
OP (CAT) NO. 119 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.N. SANTHOSH, SMT.K.P. GEETHA MANI
For the Respondents: O.M. SHALINA, SRI T.V. VINU
Judicial review of employee transfers is limited to statutory violations, mala fides, or incompetence; personal inconvenience is insufficient.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the transfer order issued by the respondents, claiming it was punitive and against administrative exigencies. The Tribunal dismissed the application, citing the transfer was necessary for service requirements and based on the petitioner's qualifications. The Supreme Court has stated that transfers are generally not subject to judicial review unless they violate statutory provisions or are made in bad faith. The court found no legal violation in the Tribunal's order.
Result: The Original Petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. transfer challenged based on alleged punitive nature and policy violation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. response argues transfer was legitimate and required for administrative needs. (Para 3) |
| 3. tribunal's rationale emphasizes the authority's discretion in transfer matters. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. judicial review constraints on transfer legality are clarified, emphasizing adherence to authority. (Para 6) |
| 5. district court concludes the case lacks merits and dismisses the petition. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 21.10.2025 passed in Original Application No.180/000608/2024, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, has dismissed the Original Application.
2. The petitioner is the applicant in the Original Application, and the respondents herein are the respondents in the Original Application. The petitioner, who is working as Senior Purchase and Stores Officer at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC), Thiruvananthapuram, a unit of the ISRO under the Department of Space, Government of India, had challenged the transfer order dated 19.11.2024, whereby he was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Mahendragiri in Tamil Nadu on administrative exigency, as being illegal and unsustainable in law. He also challenged the transfer order on the ground that his transfer was not made on account of any administrative exigency or in public interest, but was a punitive transfer, as is evident from Annexure A5(4) dated 04.11.2024 and Annexure A5(6) dated 18.06.2024, which are internal communications of the respondents disclosing the reasons for his transfer.
2.1 The petitioner further stated that, normally, a transfer is made in the Administrative Wing in ISRO either on promotion or on request. He was initially appointed in the year 2008 as Purchase and Stores Officer directly at VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram. Thereafter, he was transferred and posted to NESC, Hyderabad, in 2014 on his promotion to the post of Senior Purchase and Stores Officer, where he continued for more than three years. Subsequently, he was transferred back to the MVIT Stores at the Valiamala Centre, which is situated more than 30 kilometres away from VSSC, and he worked there for more than five years. In October 2022, he was posted to VSSC, Thiruvananthapuram. Vide transfer order dated 19.11.2024, the petitioner was transferred and posted to IPRC, Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu.
2.2 The petitioner further submitted that the transfer order was issued in gross violation of the transfer policy. He had also submitted a representation against the said transfer order. However, the Tribunal, without considering these aspects, dismissed the Original Application.
Hence, this Original Petition.
3. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the Original Application. In the counter reply, Annexures R1(A) and R1(B) were produced, with the specific contention of the respondents that, while issuing the transfer order, they had taken into consideration the petitioner’s ability to effectively carry out the activities of IPRC, Mahendragiri, Tamil Nadu. The transfer was effected in exigency of official requirements and in public interest.
3.1 The reliance placed by the petitioner on Annexure A5 documents to contend that the transfer is punitive is wholly misplaced, since disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him for a separate offence, for which a charge sheet has already been issued, and the proceedings are pending. Those proceedings have no connection with the present transfer. The reasons for initiating the disciplinary proceedings have been clearly spelt out in the Annexure A5 documents. Therefore, the transfer cannot be termed as punitive. The transfer has been effected purely on account of administrative exigency and requirement. The petitioner has completed more than three years at T
