Administrative transfers cannot be interfered with unless proved arbitrary or mala fide, upholding principles of administrative discretion.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1756 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , to set aside Annexure A8 order No.2809/2025 LSGD dated 14.11.2025 of the 1^st respondent State and to permit him to continue as Assistant Secretary at Ambalavayal Grama Panchayat, till the general transfer; an order directing the 2^nd respondent Principal Director, Principal Directorate of Local Self Government Department, to pay him salary from 29.09.2025 onwards.

2. In O.A.(EKM)No.1756 of 2025, the 3^rd respondent Secretary, Ambalavayal Grama Panchayat, filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 19.01.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dated 18.02.2026, dismissed the original application. The said order reads thus;

“The applicant is challenging Annexure A8 order by which the appeal against transfer ordered by the 2^nd respondent from Ambalavayal Grama Panchayath to Poothadi Grama Panchayath was rejected. In Annexure A8, it is stated that applicant has been transferred to Poothadi Grama Panchayath which is nearer to his residence and having more facilities to reach there. It is also stated that the Panchayath also had requested for a transfer of the applicant. The transfer as per Annexure A4 was ordered stating the reason as “administrative convenience”.

2. The order of transfer does not cast any stigma on the applicant. In the Original Application the contention of the applicant is that he joined the station only on 08.02.2023, his wife is bedridden, his aged mother is a cancer patient and his son is studying in Ambalavayal. He was not heard while orders were passed. Though it is mentioned that the order is arbitrary, biased and with malafide intention, there is no explanation substantiating the said contention.

3. The Government has stated that the transfer was to a station near to his residence and is more accessible. In such circumstances, the contention of the applicant for retention on the ground of the disease of his wife and mother is unsustainable. The applicant does not have any right to insist that he should be posted in a particular station.

4. Now it is submitted that other incumbents are working at Poothadi as well as at Ambalavayal. If that be so, it is up to the respondent no.2 to provide the applicant a station in accordance with availability of vacancy and we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the above Original Application is dismissed.”

3. Challenging Ext.P4 order dated 18.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1756 of 2025, the petitioner-applicant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India .

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

5. The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 18.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1756 of 2025.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that while dismissing the original application by Ext.P4 order dated 18.02.2026, the Tribunal has not properly considered the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant. In such circumstances, an interference of this Court is warranted.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would contend that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order, for rejecting the reliefs sough