Administrative transfers are reviewable only for jurisdictional error or proven mala fides.

The appellants challenged their respective transfer orders by filing writ petitions, which the Writ Court dismissed on 26 March 2024, holding that transfer is incidental to service.

Suganthupriyan had been transferred from Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District, to Courtallam, Tenkasi District; Sundar had been transferred from Attur, Salem District, to Talavadi, Erode District.

They appealed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

While the appeals were pending, interim orders enabled them to continue at their existing places for more than two years

Whether the Writ Court erred in declining to interfere with the appellants’ administrative transfer orders

Whether the appellants established a legally sustainable ground for judicial interference with those orders

Transfer is ordinarily an incident of service, and an administrative transfer may be challenged only on grounds such as lack of jurisdiction or mala fides. An allegation of mala fides must be established, and the authority alleged to have acted mala fide should be impleaded in a personal capacity.

Transfer guidelines generally regulate the competent authority’s exercise of power and do not confer an enforceable right to a particular place or post. Courts should not ordinarily interfere with day-to-day government administration or entertain a writ petition under Article 226 based merely on a grievance concerning an administrative transfer.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the transfers were made on administrative grounds and that the appellants had raised no acceptable ground warranting interference with the Writ Court’s order.

It also noted that, under interim orders in the appeals, the appellants had remained at their existing places for more than two years, and concluded that further concession or leniency was unwarranted.

It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.