Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The respondents in O.A. No.358 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is a native of Haripad in Alappuzha District and presently working as First Grade Surveyor at the office of Resurvey Superintendent, Mankombu, Alappuzha District, which is 35 Kms away from her house, under the 3rd petitioner. The respondent was transferred to Alappuzha District in 2018 and has been continuing in various stations in Alappuzha District since then. Previously she was in Thrissur District for a period of 4 years. The respondent is transferred to Thodupuzha in Idukki District, vidę Annexure A1 order dated 11.01.2024 issued by the 2nd petitioner. The husband of the respondent is a chronic diabetic patient having hypoglycaemia. Due to the use of insulin at night, there is a possibility of decreasing the glucose level, and on several occasions, the same happened. The assistance of a bystander is highly necessary, especially at night. Therefore, the respondent is presently travelling 35 Kms every day to reach her home to look after her husband. The children of the respondent are studying abroad, and there is no one other than the respondent to look after her Husband. The respondent has been in the present station for more than 3 years. She submitted a request for transfer and submitted three options, i.e, Kottayam, Pathanamthitta and Ernakulam. The respondent is going to retire on 31.05.2027, and she has only 3 years service. In those circumstances, the 2nd petitioner has to consider her option as per the existing circulars. In the provisional list, the 2nd petitioner assigned Rank No.74 to Kottayam District, Rank No.69 to Pathanamthitta District and Rank No.63 to Ernakulam District to the respondent. But the 2nd petitioner on 04.12.2023 issued a draft list for transfer in which the respondent was included in the list of compulsory transfer and was transferred to Thodupuzha in Idukki District. The Tribunal by Annexure A10 Order dated 16.01.2024 in O.A.No.92 of 2024, directed the 1st petitioner to consider Annexure A9 representation dated 15.01.2024 submitted by the respondent. Thereafter, the 2nd petitioner passed Annexure A11 proceedings dated 22.01.2024 directing the respondent to join in the office of the 5th petitioner and issued Annexure A12 notice dated 15.02.2024 directing the respondent to relieve from duty immediately. Without considering the request of the respondent for a transfer to the nearby District, the 1st petitioner rejected Annexure A9 representation by Annexure A13 order dated 12.02.2024. Annexure A13 is totally illegal and is against Annexure A14 transfer guidelines issued by the Government. Hence, the respondent approached the Tribunal with the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i) Call for the records leads to Annexure A1, A11, A12 and A13 and set aside the same to the extent it transfers the Applicant from Mankombu(Alappuzha) to Thodupuzha in Idukki, rejecting her request on compassionate grounds since the same is against the existing guidelines for transfer.

                  ii)       Issue an order directing the 2nd Respondent to transfer the Applicant to Kottayam, Pathanamthitta or Ernakulam as per her requests considering medical reason and date of retirement.

                  iii)       To declare that the Applicant is entitled to get a transfer to Kottayam, Pathanamthitta or Ernakulam considering medical reason and date of retirement and also as per Annexure A14 guidelines for transfer”.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd petitioner, a statement dated 15.03.2024 was filed opposing the relief sought and producing therewith Annexure R2 (a) and R2 (b) documents. To that reply statement, the respondent filed a rejoinder dated 07.07.2024, producing therewith Annexure A15 to A17 documents. On behalf of the 2nd petitioner, an additional statement dated 14.10.2024 was filed before the Tribunal, producing therewith Annexure R2(c) document. The 1st petitioner adopted the statement and additional statement filed on behalf of the 2nd petitioner by filing a memo dated 12.02.2025. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, by the impugned order dated 17.07.2025, the Tribunal disposed of the original application. Paragraphs 3, 4 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

                  “3. The contentions in the reply statement is that there are several other claimants also for transfer to Alappuzha district and that transfer of the applicant was ordered in accordance with the rules. It is further stated that 73 Surveyors were waiting for transfer to Alappuzha district and only 24 of them were given transfer to Alappuzha. The applicant has already completed five years of continuous service in the present station.

                  4. Since, at present, general transfer of 2025 is over, the respondents would be free to consider the case of the applicant in the next general transfer. The applicant can also submit application as and when applications are called for the next general transfer. Till such time, the applicant shall be allowed to continue in the same station.

                  The Original Application is disposed of accordingly”.

4. Being aggrieved by the directions issued by the Tribunal, the petitioners are now before this Court with the present original petition.

5. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the respondent has been working in Alappuzha since 2018. The order of the Tribunal permitting the respondent to continue in the present station till the next general transfer was without proper appreciation of the factual matrix and the law on the point. It is true that the respondent had opted for three other stations in the transfer application. But more eligible candidates were there for those stations, and hence, the respondent was transferred to Idukki district. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the illness, hypoglycaemia of her husband, relied on by the respondent based on Annexure A2 medical certificate issued by a doctor, is not included in the category of illnesses provided in Annexure A14 transfer guidelines for transfer on compassionate grounds.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no material to show that more entitled persons were there to be posted in the three opted districts mentioned in the transfer application submitted by the respondent. Moreover, since her husband is suffering from hypoglycaemia, the respondent is entitled to get a transfer to any of the nearby districts of her home district on compassionate grounds.

8. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

9. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.

10. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

11. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

12. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory  in  nature  and  not  that  of  an  appellate  court.  Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.

13. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

14. It is trite that whether an employee is to be transferred to a different station, etc, are matter for the employer to consider, depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is the employer who knows best where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his or her duties for the establishment. The inconveniences caused to the employee and his family consequent to the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. Generally, the Court exercising writ jurisdiction would not interfere in the orders of transfer of an employee issued by the employer, for administrative reasons, as it will adversely affect the smooth functioning of that institution. The circumstance under which the Court can interfere with the orders of transfer is laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court in several judgments.

15. In Union of India v. S.L Abbas [(1993) 4 SCC 357] the Apex Court held thus:

                  “Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly, if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

16. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd v. Shri Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574] the Apex Court held thus:

                  “It is by now well-settled and often reiterated by this Court that no Government servant or employee of public Undertaking has any legal right to be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Unless an order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala fide exercise of power or stated to be in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting any such transfer, the Courts or the Tribunals cannot interfere with such orders as a matter of routine, as though they are the Appellate Authorities substituting their own decision for that of the Management, as against such orders passed in the interest of administrative exigencies of the service concerned.”(emphasis supplied)

17. In Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others [2024 SCC Online SC 279] the Apex Court held thus:

                  “15. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding malafide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegations are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferrable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

                  (emphasis supplied)

18. In Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation [2023 (3) KLT 893], this Court held that the law is too well settled that transfer is an incident of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. Unless the orders of transfer are vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides, Courts should be loath to interfere with the same.

19. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader reiterated the contention of the petitioners that there are several other claimants for transfer to Alappuzha District, and the transfer of the respondent was ordered in accordance with the rules. According to the Senior Government Pleader, 73 surveyors were waiting for transfer to Alappuzha district, and only 24 were given transfer to Alappuzha.

20. From the submissions made at the Bar and from the materials placed on record, we notice that the respondent has been working in Alappuzha District for nearly five years. Though she claims transfer to a nearby district of her home district on compassionate grounds, stating the illness of her husband, from Annexure A14 transfer guidelines, we notice that the illness, hypoglycaemia, suffered by the husband of the respondent is not included in the category of illnesses enumerated therein.

21. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the district-wise list was prepared by the petitioners for transfer and in Annexure A4 provisional transfer list prepared for Pathanamthitta District, the respondent was serial No.69. But the person included as serial No.100 was granted transfer to Pathanamthitta, which was one of the opted districts of the respondent. However, from the records, we notice that the respondent has not arrayed the aforesaid person who was transferred to Pathanamthitta as a party to the original application. Therefore, the aforesaid contention of the respondent cannot be considered in this original petition.

22. From the pleadings in the original application, we notice that the respondent has no case that the transfer order impugned by the respondent was vitiated by malafides. A pleading to that effect is conspicuously absent in the original application. In such circumstances, we find that the respondent is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the original application. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that in the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects in its proper perspective. Therefore the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

                  In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 in O.A.No.358 of 2024 and the original application stands dismissed.