Limited interference with administrative transfers is permitted unless vitiated by mala fides or legal violations.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in judgment dated 06.01.2026 of this Court in W.A.No.3097 of 2025, arising out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2025 in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025. The said writ appeal was disposed of, though interference was declined on the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025, after recording the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for IHRD, in paragraph 10 of the judgment. Paragraphs 6 to 10 and also last paragraph of the judgment dated

06.01.2026, read thus;

“6. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner would contend that though the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 11.07.2025, on publication of Ext.P7 draft list, no orders have been passed on that representation. Without considering the request made in Ext.P8, the 1^st respondent Director of IHRD issued Ext.P9 order of transfer dated 02.08.2025.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for IHRD would submit that Ext.P9 order of transfer has been issued after considering all the representations made by the employees working under IHRD. The learned counsel would point out clause IV of Ext.P1 circular dated 23.04.2025, which stipulates that every employee working under IHRD continuously in a station for more than two years is required to submit application for general transfer in terms of the said notification. Therefore, the appellant-petitioner who is continuing at the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, has to submit application for transfer pursuant to Ext.P1 circular dated 23.04.2025.

8. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for IHRD on the challenge made against Ext.P9 order of transfer, we notice that interference with the order of transfer in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. As held by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal [ (2004) 11 SCC 402 ], an interference with the order of transfer is legally permissible only when the transfer order is shown to be vitiated by mala fides or in violation of any statutory provisions or having been issued by an authority not competent to pass such an order.

9. In the absence of any specific ground to that effect made out in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge cannot be found fault with in not interfering with Ext.P9 order of transfer dated 02.08.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent Director of IHRD, to the extent the appellant-petitioner was transferred from the Model Engineering College, Ernakulam to the College of Engineering, Cherthala. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the judgment dated 27.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge, declining interference on Ext.P9 order of transfer.

10. As already noticed hereinbefore, according to the appellant-petitioner, she is yet to be issued with the order passed by the 1^st respondent Director of IHRD on Ext.P8 representation dated 11.07.2025 made to the draft transfer list published vide Ext.P6 circular dated 10.07.2025. The submission of the learned Standing Counsel for IHRD is that, in case the said representation is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent IHRD, a decision on that representation shall be taken, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In case a decision has already been taken on that representation, prior to the issuance of Ext.P9 order of transfer, the same shall be communicated to the appellant, forthwith.

In the above circumstances, though interference is declined on the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2025 of the learned