Transfer orders are valid unless proven mala fide; administrative necessity justifies transfers despite alleged misconduct references.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned transfer order issued by the 1^st respondent dated 24.02.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No. 000639/G1/2025 and consequential order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated

27.02.2025 bearing Na.Ka.No.854/A1/2023.

2. By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on

18.07.1988 in Theni District and she was promoted as Primary and Middle School Headmasters on 18.06.2001 and 08.03.2005 respectively. Thereafter, she was promoted as Additional Assistant Elementary Officer on 18.08.2010 and Assistant Elementary Educational Officer on 29.12.2021 and as Block Educational Officer on 29.12.2021. Now, the petitioner is presently working as Block Development Officer at Theni District. While this being so, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondents transferring the petitioner to Kanyakumari District. Challenging the said transfer orders, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that the transfer order even though as an administrative measure, is really punitive in nature, since the impugned orders have been passed on the basis of a complaint lodged against the petitioner. However, the petitioner is noway connected with the said allegations.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widow, who is living with her unmarried daughter and hence, she finds difficulty to travel such a long distance. Hence, he seeks for quash of the impugned orders.

6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that no public or Government servant has any legal right to be posted at any particular place, since transfer of a Government servant from one place to another is not only a condition of service, but incident of service and hence, he urged this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Madras vs. R. Perachi reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137, has held that the provision of reasons in the transfer order, including reference to the alleged misconduct or complaints against the employee concerned, would not per se lead to the conclusion that the transfer is punitive and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-

“(c) The administrative exigencies that, in the opinion of the employer, necessitate transfer cannot be exhaustively enumerated and the court would not ordinarily substitute its view for that of the employer in such matters;

(d) A transfer would be construed as punitive or in lieu of punishment if, in the opinion of the court, there is sufficient evidence that such transfer is intended to be the punishment for the alleged misconduct. The provision of reasons in the transfer order, including reference to the alleged misconduct or complaints against the employee concerned, would not per se lead to the conclusion that the transfer is punitive;”

9. Further, transfer is a contingency of service and the employer has full discretion to transfer the employees on administrative exigencies. The impugned transfer order was made on administrative grounds and therefore, the same cannot be questioned by the employee. It is also well settled that transfer is an incident of service and transfer on account of administrative exigencies cannot be interfered with by Courts in exercise of judicial review unless the order of transfer is found to be mala fide.

10. In view of the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.