Kerala High Court
Dr.Sindhu.S vs The Director on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 1 2026:KER:670
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2025 IN WP(C)NO.43234 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DR. SINDHU S.
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O RAMACHANDRAN KK, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
MATHEMATICS, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALLIPURAM
P.O.CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA RESIDING AT SREESAILAM,
EDAYAPPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAJITH T.
SHRI.SURESH C.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR
INSTITUTE OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT(IHRD) PRAJOE
TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
2 THE PRINCIPAL
MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRIKKAKARA, THRIKKAKARA
P.O., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI., PIN - 682021
3 THE PRINCIPAL
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, PALLIPURAM P.O.CHERTHALA,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688541
OTHER PRESENT:
W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 2 2026:KER:670
SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, IHRD
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 3 2026:KER:670
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
This writ appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, is against the judgment dated 27.11.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025, which was one filed by the appellant-petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order of transfer dated 02.08.2025, insofar as the petitioner is ordered to be transferred from Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, Ernakulam to College of Engineering, Cherthala; a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Director of Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) to consider Ext.P11 representation dated 12.10.2025, made by the petitioner along with Ext.P10 representation dated 04.08.2025, within a reasonable time. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer her to Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, Ernakulam, from the College of Engineering, Cherthala.
2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the appellant-petitioner, who was working as Associate Professor W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 4 2026:KER:670 in Department of Mathematics, Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, was ordered to be transferred to the College of Engineering, Cherthala. The petitioner was continuing in the Model Engineering College, Thrikkakara, since September 2021. Ext.P9 order of transfer was one issued in terms of Ext.P1 circular dated 23.04.2025, whereby applications were invited for general transfer, for the year 2025. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application for general transfer, which was an online application, in which she preferred College of Engineering, Cherthala. According to the petitioner, immediately after submission of Ext.P4 application, she submitted Ext.P5 application, wherein she has stated that no transfer is required. The 1st respondent Director of IHRD published the draft list for general transfer, 2025 along with Ext.P6 circular dated 10.07.2025. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 11.07.2025. According to the petitioner, without considering the request made in Ext.P8, the 1st respondent Director of IHRD issued Ext.P9 order of transfer dated 02.08.2025, whereby she has been transferred to College of Engineering, Cherthala. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 04.08.2025, which was followed by Ext.P11 representation dated 12.10.2025. Thereafter, the W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 5 2026:KER:670 petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025, seeking the aforesaid relief.
3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2025, dismissed W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025. Paragraphs 5 to 8 and also the last paragraph of that judgment read thus;
'5. Ext.P4 is a copy of the application for general transfer 2025. Ext.P4 would indicate that the petitioner has sought for transfer and has positively asserted in Ext.P4 that a transfer is required to the petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P4 is not a correct application and when the petitioner was given an option to make corrections, Ext.P5 application was submitted. In Ext.P5 application, the petitioner had specifically stated that transfer is not required, adding that the petitioner is settled at Aluva and her husband is a heart patient.
7. From the pleadings, I find that yet another application was submitted as per Ext.P7, wherein against the column "Whether Transfer is required or not?", the petitioner has positively stated "Yes".
8. From the facts of the case, I am inclined to believe that the petitioner has made an application for transfer, giving College of Engineering, Cherthala as an option. The respondents have given transfer to the petitioner to the said College. I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is hence dismissed.'
4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.11.2025 W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 6 2026:KER:670 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025, the appellant-petitioner is before this Court in this writ appeal.
5. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for IHRD for the respondents.
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 1st 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 W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 7 2026:KER:670 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 1st 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.
W.A.NO.3097 OF 2025 8 2026:KER:670
10. As already noticed hereinbefore, according to the appellant-petitioner, she is yet to be issued with the order passed by the 1st 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 1st 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 Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.43234 of 2025, this writ appeal is disposed of recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for IHRD.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MIN