SREELAKSHMI P.B.

KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD AND OTHERS

Service Law — Transfer — Constitution of India, Article 226 — Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 11A — Engineers of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board transferred to Head Office, one along with her post — Challenge on grounds of want of power in the Chairperson, breach of the work distribution order, mala fides and punitive transfer — Transfer is the employer’s prerogative; courts lack judicially manageable standards for personnel management — Factual mala fides cannot be urged when the person accused is not impleaded in her personal capacity — Chairperson, exercising powers of general administration delegated under S. 11A, competent to transfer incumbents, independently or along with posts, in the exigencies of service — Transfers shown to meet staff shortage at Head Office — Appeals dismissed — Appreciation recorded for junior counsel’s arguments.

Question for Consideration

Whether the transfer order dated 07.07.2026 moving the appellants to the Board’s Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram was liable to be interfered with under Article 226, on grounds of want of power, breach of the work distribution order, mala fides or punitive intent. [Paras 2, 4]

Facts in Brief

Sreelakshmi P.B., a Senior Environmental Engineer at Kottayam, was transferred along with her post to the Head Office of the Kerala State Pollution Control Board at Thiruvananthapuram; Pravithamol T.N., an Environmental Engineer at Pathanamthitta for about 14 years, was transferred to a vacancy at the Head Office. The transfers followed memos issued to them for alleged insubordination on 09.06.2026 in the Chairperson’s chambers. They contended that (i) only the Board, not the Chairperson, could transfer; (ii) delegated power did not extend to transferring a post with its incumbent; (iii) the work distribution order of 02.11.2016 could not be altered without Board sanction; (iv) the transfer was mala fide; and (v) it was punitive without any disciplinary proceedings. A Single Judge found no mala fides proved, held the transfers were in the exigencies of service, and dismissed the writ petitions. [Paras 2–3, 6]

Contentions

Appellants: Even if factual mala fides cannot be urged, legal mala fides arise from disregard of the work distribution order: Senior Environmental Engineer posts meant for Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam had been shifted to Wayanad, Kottayam and Kannur to accommodate particular officers; the Head Office, sanctioned four Environmental Engineers, now has six, and Pravithamol was given no table, chair or duties there. [Paras 7–8]

Board: The transfers were made in the exigencies of service. [Para 3]

Held

1. Transfer is the employer’s prerogative. In a transferable service the employer knows best where an employee should be deployed. Where career prospects are unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference is ordinarily eschewed; prejudice to public interest must first be pleaded and proved by showing the replacement is unsuitable and the transfer avoidable (Shilpi Bose; S.L. Abbas; N.K. Singh; NHPC v. Bhagwan; Divyamol). [Para 5]
2. Four-part test for interference. Judicial interference with a transfer is not warranted in the absence of (i) pleadings of mala fides, (ii) impleading the person against whom they are alleged, (iii) violation of a statutory provision, and (iv) detriment to the employee (Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh). [Para 5]
3. Mala fides — person accused must be impleaded. A person against whom mala fides are alleged must be impleaded in her personal capacity so she can answer the charge (Ratnagiri Gas and Power v. RDS Projects). The Chairperson was not so impleaded, which prevents the appellants from urging factual mala fides, in the writ petitions or in appeal. [Paras 5–6]
4. Chairperson competent under delegated power. The work distribution order of 02.11.2016 was itself issued by the Chairperson under powers of general administration delegated by the Board under S. 11A of the Water Act. The Chairperson is therefore empowered to transfer incumbents, independently or along with their posts, to other offices in the exigencies of service. [Para 9]
5. No judicially manageable standards. Courts lack the expertise for personnel management; the decision to transfer must ordinarily be left to the institutional head. Whether the Board is better served by retaining the appellants at their stations “was never for the appellants to take”. [Para 9]
6. Transfers justified on facts. Pravithamol had served at Pathanamthitta for over 14 years and there was a felt need for an Environmental Engineer at Head Office. For Sreelakshmi, the Head Office was short of Senior Environmental Engineers because two others had been transferred with their posts to their home stations in view of imminent retirement. [Para 10]

Result

Observation

The Bench recorded its appreciation for junior counsel Smt. Silpa Sreekumar, who assisted the senior counsel and supplemented his arguments with “impressive and eloquent arguments of her own”, noting her erudition and critical analysis and wishing her the very best in the profession, though the verdict went against her clients.

Cases Referred

• Shilpi Bose (Mrs) v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659
• Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993) 4 SCC 357
• N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98
• National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574
• Ratnagiri Gas and Power Pvt. Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524
• Divyamol v. Director General, CISF, 2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1093
• Sri Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 KHC 6135 (SC)

Statutes Referred

• Constitution of India — Article 226
• Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Section 11A

Counsel

Sri George Poonthottam, Sr. Adv., with Smt. Silpa Sreekumar and Smt. Nisha George (for appellants); Sri Paul Jacob, Standing Counsel (for Kerala State Pollution Control Board).