Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 51750
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N. NAGARESH, J
JOJI C.A – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40746 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MUHAMMED YASIL, SHRI.M.A.AHAMMAD SAHEER, SHRI.E.A.HARIS, SMT.AAGI JOHNY
For the Respondents: SRI. M. AJAY, SMT. ANIMA M.
The court affirmed the discretion of the National Health Mission in transferring employees in the interest of operational efficiency, ruling that no statutory violation occurred.
Headnote:(A) National Health Mission Guidelines, 2022 - Transfers of District Account Managers (DAMs) - The petitioner challenged a transfer order stating it violated local recruitment criteria and lacked due process. The court discussed the nature and guidelines for transfers within NHM, underscoring the employer’s discretion in administering personnel matters for public interest (Paras 8, 11, 17).
(B) Judicial Review - While evaluating transfer orders, the court clarified that it would not intervene unless there's a clear violation of statutory rules or established mala fide intent. The rationale provided by the NHM for mandatory transfers in light of financial governance and continuity was deemed sufficient (Paras 11, 18).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a District Accounts Manager, sought to challenge a compulsory transfer to Wayanad amidst claims it contravened established NHM guidelines designed to protect staff from arbitrary transfers.
Findings of Court:
The court found no violation of guidelines or established malice in the transfer process, concluding the transfer was justified for maintaining financial accountability.
Issues: The core issues revolved around adherence to transfer guidelines and the necessity of respondent discretion in personnel management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the executive committee’s decision on periodic transfers was rational and adhered to public interest principles, dismissing the petitioner’s claims of guideline violations.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges transfer based on nhm guidelines and impact on family. (Para 1 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. nhm rationale for transfers aimed at financial governance and operational continuity. (Para 8) |
| 3. court affirms discretion in employee transfers if no statutory rule is violated. (Para 11 , 18) |
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025 The petitioner, who is working as District Accounts Manager (DAM) in the National Health Mission, Malappuram office, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P9 transfer order, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Malappuram to Wayanad. The petitioner seeks to direct the 3rd respondent to retain the petitioner in Malappuram District as District Accounts Manager till the expiry of his contract period namely 31.03.2026.
2. The petitioner submits that Ext.P10 is the Human Resources Guidelines of the National Health Mission, 2022. Ext.P10 specifically provides that local recruitment criteria should be adopted and preferably there should not usually be any concept of transfer under National Health Mission. The 3rd respondent-State Mission Director is bound to follow the transfer guidelines of 2022.
3. The petitioner further submits that as per Clause
8.7 of the Guidelines, NHM employees should not be subjected to any routine transfers and the transfers may be entertained in certain exceptional circumstances such as spousal colocation and mutual transfer where both the employees at same level or the job that requires same educational qualifications want transfers because of personal / family reasons.
4. The petitioner has initially applied for the post on the reasonable belief that he will be posted only in Malappuram as the appointment is a District Specified Appointment. There are general transfer rules in the National Health Mission. The transfers are given at request. Ext.P9 is a compulsory transfer order and it is against the Human Resource Guidelines of the National Health Mission, 2022, contends the petitioner.
5. The petitioner further pointed out that while transferring the Accountants, Ex.P6 would show that certain candidates have been favoured and they are retained in the same Station / District, on a specious premise that such candidates are to retire in the year 2027. The retention of an Accountant holding that the Accountant is to retire after three years, would amply show the discriminatory treatment resorted to by the respondents.
6. The petitioner has been transferred in the midst of an academic year. The transfer imposed on the petitioner would adversely affect his family arrangements as his children are studying in Schools in Malappuram District. At any rate, the transfer imposed on the petitioner being in drastic violation of the Transfer Guideline, the same is liable to be interfered with.
7. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that initially the DAMs and some other categories of employees were selected and engaged on contract for the Districts by the NHM, Kerala. Over time, the engagements were delegated to DHFWs for convenience.
8. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that functions of the DAMs include Budgeting and Financial Planning, Fund Management, Accounts Maintenance, Audit Coordination, Capacity Building, Compliance and Monitoring and other support to DHFWS. The DAMs are second only to DPMs in the DHFWSs. They act as the first-level approvers of all payments for DHFWSs before final approval by the DPMs. They are the key personnel responsible for the efficient utilisation of funds.
9. Many DAMs are stationed in the same District for over a decade, unlike DPMs who are changed upon the completion of their approved deputation period for a maximum of five years. As the DAMs continued for long duration, the possibility of financial mismanagement on their side and undesirable contact with contractors and suppliers increase manifold. There were certain su
