Transfers of government employees are primarily administrative decisions without a legal right to remain at a specific location.

Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026 Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated

03.03.2025 of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.8208 of 2025 filed by the appellant. Respondents were the respondents in the said W.P.(C).

2. Appellant, who was working as a Superintending Engineer at the Public Health Circle, Pathanamthitta, had filed the W.P.(C) challenging the order of transfer. In the W.P.(C), the following reliefs were sought by the appellant:

"A. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P12, examine its legality and propriety and quash the same by a writ of certiorari ;

B. To direct the 1st respondent to consider the claims of the petitioner strictly in terms of Ext.P5 Government Order or Ext.P4 circular issued by the Kerala Water Authority ;

C. To permit the petitioner to apply for General Transfer for the year 2025 de-hors Ext.P12 on the basis of Ext.P4 circular and Ext.P5 transfer norms ;

D. In the event of this Honourable Court holding that Ext.P4 or Ext.P5 will not apply in the case of the petitioner, to further direct the 1st respondent to publish the "transfer policy" for promotion of officers of the Kerala Water Authority above the rank and category of Executive Engineers."

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that insofar as the appellant was occupying a transferable post and since nothing had been pointed out in the Service Rules which would entitle the appellant to seek a posting of his choice, the contentions put forth in the W.P.(C) were unsustainable. It was also concluded that in the absence of a right to be retained in post, no interference could be made by this Court under Article 226 in the transfer and posting of the appellant. Dismissing the W.P(C) it was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the transfer of the appellant from Thiruvananthapuram to Pathanamthitta was neither malafide nor against the Service Rules, and hence it called for no interference. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the W.P.(C), this Writ Appeal is filed.

4. Heard Sri.N.Krishnaprasad, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and Sri.Georgie Johny, Advocate, Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 4.

5. Since the substantial part of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to unsustainability of the reasonings in Exhibit P12 order, it would be relevant to reproduce the operative portion thereof, which reads as follows:

"The guidelines issued by the Kerala Water Authority, as cited by the petitioner, are suitably applicable to the transfers and postings done by Kerala Water Authority. In this case, the Government is the appointing/transfer authority and Government issues orders after assessment of several aspects. Therefore, the guidelines pointed out by the petitioner as such is not applicable to Government. Transfer and postings are ordered after analysing several factors, administrative reasons, public purpose etc. Though there can be circulars/guidelines on conditions of transfer and posting, they are only indicative in nature and not prescriptive. The background conditions for transfer of an official are unique and cannot be compared with any other official. This post is a higher level just below the Chief Engineer. The circumstances for giving a particular transfer to a particular office is solely based incomparable individual circumstances. After analysing all the aspects in this case, Government do not find any superior merit in Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P5 representations and therefore they do not merit consideration and are hereby summarily rejected."

6. It is contended by the learned counsel app