Transfer orders based on administrative exigency are valid unless tainted by mala fides or statutory violations.

JUDGMENT SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI ,J The present Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 01.01.2026 passed in Original Application No.320/2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, whereby it has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently working as a Technical Officer (Driver Grade V) in the Central Tuber Crops Research Institute (CTCRI), Sreekariyam, Thiruvananthapuram, which is an institution functioning under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR). Vide order dated 25.06.2025 issued by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner has been transferred from Thriuvananthapuram to ICAR-CTCRI Regional Office at Bhubaneswar, Orissa. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by challenging the transfer order on various grounds, however, the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner has been transferred malafidely. According to him the transfer order was issued without hearing him and without understanding the problems and predicament. The transfer has been effected only with the purpose to accommodate a blue eyed person of the respondents on daily wage in his place. Therefore, he alleges that the order of transfer is arbitrary, biased, discriminatory and unfair. No administrative exigency has been reflected in the order of transfer. The petitioner has large number of personal difficulties in moving out to a distant place in Bhubaneswar from Thiruvananthapuram which is about 2000 Kms away from his home town.

3.1. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that, the petitioner is suffering from Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH) and surgery was suggested as far as possible. The petitioner is also suffering from severe backbone pain which needs extra treatment of a Neuro Surgeon in Trivandrum Medical College and there is no one in his family to look after his aged and ailing mother who is totally dependent on him. Moreover, the petitioner cannot speak, read and write Oriya, English and Hindi. He only knows Malayalam and therefore, it could be very difficult for the petitioner to communicate at Bhubaneswar and as a consequence, he would not be able to discharge his duties properly. Therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned order of transfer. Thus, the Original Petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner, since his original appointment, is continuing at Thiruvananthapuram for the last 23 years. He has not been transferred even once during his entire service career and about 4 years are remaining for his superannuation Due to administrative exigencies, his services are required at Bhubaneswar. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that, the petitioner is unable to point out any statutory violation or proved malafide so as to justify interference with the transfer order. Therefore, the Original Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The transfer is only an incidence of service, and only on the grounds of personal inconvenience or that the tenure has not been completed, cannot be a ground to interfere with. Moreover, it is well settled law that the transfer is an incidence of service. Which employee should be posted where is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. The Supreme Court, in the case of Nam