The transfer of employees is considered an administrative matter subject to limited judicial review; only valid grounds, such as mala fides or violations of statutory provisions, warrant interference.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A4 order dated 25.07.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent State to the extent that the applicant is transferred from Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor; a declaration that the applicant is entitled to be retained at Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South, since he has not completed three years tenure in that station and also for the reason that he is to retire from service within a period of one year; and an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Annexure A3 representation dated 10.06.2025 made before the 2^nd respondent at the earliest, within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner-applicant was promoted and posted as Deputy Commissioner at Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South, vide Annexure A2 order dated 26.05.2025. Within a period of 2 months from the date of joining the present station, he was ordered to be transferred to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor, vide Annexure A4 order dated 25.07.2025. According to the applicant, Annexure A4 order to the extent it relates to his transfer from Ernakulam South to Perumbavoor is bad for the reason that he has been shifted out to another station in violation of the ‘Minimum Tenure Policy’ for transfer in Clause 2(i) of Annexure A5 guidelines for general transfer dated 25.02.2017. At the time of issuance of Annexure A4 order, the applicant had only 10 months to retire from service. Therefore, the order of transfer violates Clause 10(xi) of Annexure A5 guidelines, which stipulates that those with less than 2 years to retire should be given preference for their choice station. Annexure A4 order is issued in violation of Clause 10(viii) of Annexure A5 guidelines, which stipulates that postings on account of promotion should be filled up first by posting the promotees against existing vacancies. Annexure A4 order does not specify the nature of transfer, whether it is on option/compulsory/ compassionate/in Public Interest, as required to be done under Clause 12(i) of Annexure A5 guidelines. Moreover, respondents 1 and 2 failed to maintain an electronic database, including particulars of transfers and appointments of employees, as required under Clause 1(iv) of Annexure A5 guidelines, to avoid the discrepancies that may occur on account of the violation of the said guidelines. According to the applicant, as evident from Annexure A4 order, 21 ‘existing vacancies’ were available to accommodate 13 persons posted as Deputy Commissioners on promotion. Therefore, there is no reason why the applicant, who has already been promoted and posted as Deputy Commissioner, Taxpayer Services Division, Emakulam South, vide Annexure A2 order, is transferred to another ‘existing vacancy’ by Annexure A4 order, which could have been filled up by a fresh promotee.

3. On 28.07.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025 came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether the applicant’s transfer was necessary, as he is due to retire on 03.05.2026. By Ext.P2 interim order dated 28.07.2025, it was ordered that, in case the applicant as well as his substitute are not relieved, they shall be allowed to continue in their respective stations. The said interim order was extended from time to time.

4. In O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, the 1^st respondent filed Ext.P3 reply statemen