The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to interfering with transfer orders unless grounded in mala fide, statutory violations, or evident injustices.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.527 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’, in short), filed this original petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The original application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Set aside Annexure A5 order issued by the 1^st respondent.

ii) Set aside Annexure A2 order to the extent of transferring the applicant to Taluk Industries Office, Aluva.

iii) Direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to transfer and post the applicant to Taluk Industries Office, Kothamangalam, displacing the 4^th respondent”.

3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner, an Office Attendant and a native of Pallarimangalam, near Kothamangalam, filed the Original Application bearing O.A.(EKM) No.527 of 2024 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, challenging Annexure A2 transfer order dated 28.11.2023 issued by the 3^rd respondent, transfering the petitioner from Taluk Industries Office, North Paravoor to the Taluk Industries Office, Aluva, and Annexure A5 order dated 14.03.2024 of the 1^st respondent rejecting her request for transfer to the Taluk Industries Office, Kothamangalam, where the 4^th respondent has been continuously posted for over ten years. Despite the petitioner serving at distant locations, North Paravur and Aluva, approximately 80 km and 62 km respectively from her residence, her long-standing request for a transfer closer to home was denied. Meanwhile, the 4^th respondent has been allowed to continue at Kothamangalam, citing Annexure A6 general transfer restrictions for last-grade employees under G.O.(P) No.3/17/P&RD dated 25.02.2017. The petitioner earlier approached the Tribunal by filing OA (EKM) No.2005 of 2023, following which her representation was rejected through Annexure A5 order. It is challenging Annexures A2 and A5 orders; the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the present Original Application.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, a reply statement dated 29.06.2024 was filed opposing the reliefs sought in the original application.

5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 18.09.2025, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 6 and 7 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“6. Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that Annexure A6 Transfer Guidelines (GO(P)No.3/2017/P&ARD dated 25.2.2017) are applicable to the last grade servants and there is no prohibition against their general transfer. We find that the said Guidelines only provide that transfers "can be" effected within the district. At the same time it also provides that the last grade employees would not be transferred in the absence of compelling reasons.

7. The contention raised by the applicant that the protection to Scheduled Caste/Tribe employees and inter-caste married couples are available for a maximum period of five years, as per Annexure A6 Norms cannot also be accepted when general transfer is not normally permitted for the last grade servants. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with Annexure A5 order.

The Original Application is accordingly dismissed.”

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is now before this Court wit