The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited; it cannot interfere with administrative transfer orders unless there are manifest errors or violations of law.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.1832 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’, in short) filed this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P1 order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is presently working as Deputy Labour Commissioner at Ettumanoor in Kottayam District in the Labour and Skills Department. He was posted to the said station consequent to his promotion on 05.08.2025. The home station of the petitioner is Kottayam District, and he is due to retire from service on 31.05.2027. While so, the 3^rd respondent, who is presently working as Deputy Labour Commissioner at Thrissur, filed O.A. No. 1412 of 2025 seeking transfer to Ettumanoor by pointing out that he is the caregiver of his brother, having 50% disability. The said original application was disposed of as per Annexure A2 order, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation preferred by the 3^rd respondent. The 4^th respondent, who is presently working as Deputy Labour Commissioner at Palakkad, also filed O.A. No.1411 of 2025 seeking transfer to Thrissur, and the Tribunal directed the 1^st respondent to consider her case also while considering the case of the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent is not the sole caregiver of his disabled brother since they constitute 2 among the 9 siblings of a family, and evidently, there are 7 other brothers to the disabled person apart from the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent is only a limited guardian for a period of 6 months, and even such a guardianship was obtained much after Annexure A2 order issued by the Tribunal. If at all his claim for transfer is considered, he can have a claim for posting only to Ernakulam i.e., his home district and not to Kottayam. However, in purported compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, Annexure A5 order dated 27.10.2025 has been issued by the 1^st respondent transferring out the petitioner to Palakkad and placing the 3^rd respondent as the petitioner’s substitute at Kottayam and transferring the 4^th respondent to Thrissur i.e., the present station of the 3^rd respondent. No legitimate reason has been stated in Annexure A5 order, so as to transfer the petitioner to Palakkad. Therefore, Annexure A5 order is liable to be quashed. With these pleadings, the applicant-petitioner filed the original application before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To call for the records leading to Annexure A5 and quash the same;

ii. To declare that the transfer of the applicant as per Annexure A5 order are illegal and arbitrary;

iii. To direct the 1^st respondent to issue orders retaining the applicant as Deputy Labour Commissioner at Ettumanoor, Kottayam”

3. Before the Tribunal, the 3^rd and 4^th respondents filed a reply statement dated 06.11.2025 opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner and producing therewith Annexures R3(a) to R3(j) documents. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 11.11.2025.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 12.11.2025 dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 7 to 9 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“7. After considering the contentions raised on both sides, it is seen that the applicant was posted at Kottayam on his promotion