1. The petitioner, who is stated to be a native of Thiruvananthapuram District and resides with her family in Thiruvananthapuram, joined the service of the Civil Judicial Wing as a Clerk on 10.03.2014 in Ernakulam District. She was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk on 14.01.2019. On completion of five years of service, with reference to the mandate under Ext.P1 Government Order dated 02.12.1991, she is stated to have requested for an “inter-district transfer” to Thiruvananthapuram on 27.04.2019, along with the required supporting documents/annexures. This application is followed by similar applications on 20.07.2019, 18.11.2019, 17.03.2020, and 02.07.2020. She contends that similarly placed Senior Clerks were transferred inter-district, pursuant to Ext.P4 series of orders, and therefore, laments that similar treatment is not being extended to her. She points out to Ext.P5 Official Memorandum (OM) issued by the High Court of Kerala (4th respondent) dated 01.11.2021, to the effect that there is no provision for “reversion for the purpose of inter-district transfer and inter-district transfer is permissible only in the entry cadre”. The petitioner is further informed that individual cases may require relaxation of the rules at the hands of the Government, for which she has approached the Government with supporting documents. The petitioner also points out to Ext.P6 OM dated 24.09.2021, providing for the modality for seeking individual relaxations, referred to in Ext.P5 OM. The petitioner further states that Ext.P6 OM makes reference to the Government Letter dated 23.06.2021, which in turn refers to a Government Order dated 06.02.2013, producing the letter and the Government Order as Exts.P7 and P8. Ext.P8 Government Order has since been varied also by another Government Order dated 10.07.2014, which is produced as Ext.P9. She points out that though she submitted a representation for sympathetic consideration of her request as an individual case and pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 05.04.2022, this was directed to be considered, by Ext.P11 Government Order dated 16.05.2022, the said request is also rejected. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P6 Official Memorandums, as well as Ext.P7 Government Letter, to the extent that they limit inter-district transfers to the entry cadre alone. The petitioner has also sought to challenge Ext.P8 Government Order, to the extent it stipulates that the service in the entry cadre alone is entitled to inter-district transfer.

2. I have heard Dr.K.P.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mohammed Shafi K., the learned Government Pleader and Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

3. Dr.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that:

                  i. Since what is sought for is only in an inter-district transfer, it is only the Government Order at Ext.P1 that needs to be applied.

                  ii. The statement in Ext.P5 OM of the 4th respondent that inter-district transfer is permissible only in the entry cadre is violative of the Government Order at Ext.P1.

                  iii. Ext.P5 OM to the extent it speaks about the lack of provision for reversion for the purpose of inter-district transfer, also goes against Ext.P1 Government Order.

                  iv. Ext.P6 OM has also been issued without noticing the afore.

                  v. Ext.P7 communication/letter from the Government is applicable only as regards the inter-unit/inter departmental transfer, and hence, the interdiction limiting the benefits in the entry cadre alone, would not be applicable.

                  vi. The fact that Ext.P1 Government Order exclusively covers inter-district transfers has been admitted in Ext.P8 Government Order (Paragraphs 2 and 3).

4. Per contra, Sri.Sunil Jose, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5, would contend that:

                  i. Though Ext.P1 applies exclusively to the “inter-district transfer” of an employee, the petitioner’s case is one of “inter-unit transfer”.

                  ii. Therefore, the interdiction under Ext.P7 Government letter noticed above would apply.

                  iii. Under Rule 6 of the Kerala Judicial Ministerial Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 (for short, the ‘Rules’), the Civil Wing and Criminal Wing of each District are to be taken as a “separate unit”.

                  iv. Therefore, the petitioner is governed by the interdiction from seeking inter-unit transfers.

5. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the connected records.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner, admittedly, is working in the civil judiciary in Ernakulam District. The petitioner seeks an inter-district transfer in terms of the Government Order at Ext.P1 dated 02.12.1991. True, Ext.P1 Government Order only provides that such a request can be made after the completion of five years of service in the District of recruitment. However, the question that requires determination is whether the request made by the petitioner is one for an “inter-district transfer” or an “inter-unit transfer”. The provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules read as follows:

                  “6. Unit of appointment, seniority, discharge, etc.-For the purpose of recruitment, seniority, discharge for want of vacancy and re-appointment of probationers and approved probationer appointment of full members, promotion, postings and appointment from one post to another in the same category, the Civil Wing and the Criminal Wing of each district shall each be a separate unit:

                  Provided that the Civil and Criminal Wings in respect of categories 5 (a), 5(b) in Class I shall each be a separate State Unit.

                  Note: This shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 07/10/1975.

                  (Underlining supplied)

7. The contention raised by Sri. Sunil Jacob Jose is that the Civil Wing and the Criminal Wing of each District are to be treated as “separate wings” and, therefore, the request made by the petitioner is one for an “inter-unit transfer”. In reply, Dr.Pradeep states that only the Civil Wing and the Criminal Wing are directed to be treated as separate units. Therefore, since the petitioner sought a transfer from the Civil Wing, Ernakulam, to the Civil Wing, Thiruvananthapuram, it is merely an inter-district transfer. However, in my opinion, Rule 6 provides for treating the Civil Wing and Criminal Wing of “each District” as a separate unit. Therefore, the Civil Wing of Ernakulam District, where the petitioner works, and the Civil Wing of Thiruvananthapuram District, to which transfer was sought, are to be treated as separate units.

8. When that be so, the interdiction as regards inter-unit transfer applies to the petitioner's claim also. The Government Order at Ext.P8 dated 06.02.2013 specifically lays down that such transfer is permissible only in the entry cadre. As noticed earlier, the challenge against Ext.P8 is confined to the limited extent of prescribing a minimum tenure of five years for seeking an inter-district transfer under Ext.P1 Government Order. However, the afore challenge cannot be accepted, since Ext.P1 Government Order would apply only in the case of inter-district transfer, and Ext.P8 is applicable for inter-unit transfer. There is no challenge to Ext.P8 to the extent it interdicts an inter-unit transfer other than in the entry cadre.

9. This Court also notices the contention advanced by Sri.Sunil Jacob Jose, that the petitioner, having been appointed in the Ernakulam Judicial District pursuant to a District Recruitment Scheme, cannot seek any transfer, overlooking the Government Order at Ext.P8. Further, the petitioner has been admittedly promoted, and there is no provision for reverting the petitioner to the entry cadre. This Court further notices that the 4th respondent has issued Ext.P12 Official Memorandum dated 09.05.2025, as per which, even a Senior Clerk is entitled to furnish a representation to the Government for reversion to the entry cadre for the purpose of an inter-unit transfer. Needless to say that, if the petitioner is entitled to seek the afore benefit, she would be entitled to make a representation in that regard.

In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Hence, this writ petition would stand dismissed.