Kerala HC sets aside KAT stay on mass transfer of revenue department officials

Kochi: In a major relief to the state govt, high court on Wednesday set aside the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order staying the mass transfer of 181 tahsildars and senior superintendents in the revenue department.A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and S Muralee Krishna passed the order on a petition filed by the state govt challenging the KAT’s June 23 order staying the transfer orders issued by the land revenue commissioner on June 19 and 20. The interim order had been passed on a petition filed by the Kerala Revenue Department Staff Association (KRDSA), represented by its vice-president and two of its members.The special govt pleader submitted that tahsildars and senior superintendents in state revenue service are designated as executive magistrates and incident commanders under the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

It was further argued that, with census-related duties set to begin, the promotions and transfers had to be completed without delay. The respondent association, however, contended that the transfer orders were issued in violation of the state’s general transfer guidelines, including the requirement of an online process to ensure transparency and adherence to the prescribed norms.Allowing the state’s petition, HC observed that the transfer guidelines issued by the govt are neither statutory in nature nor do they constitute conditions of service.

It held that judicial review of transfer orders is limited to examining whether they are vitiated by mala fides, malice, arbitrariness, or substantial legal or factual perversity. The court further observed that a tribunal can interfere with a transfer order only if a prima facie case of mala fides or violation of a statutory provision is made out.

Unless mala fides or oblique motives are specifically pleaded or necessarily inferred from the facts, courts and tribunals should not interfere with transfer orders, HC said.The court also noted that persons directly affected by the transfers had not been impleaded as parties to the original application before KAT, despite such impleadment being mandatory under the relevant rules. It held that KAT had therefore committed a grave error in granting the interim stay. At the same time, HC clarified that its observations would not prejudice KAT while deciding the original application on its merits.