Kerala High Court
Dr. Vidya K.R vs State Of Kerala on 6 October, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
1
2025:KER:72997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 384 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.842
OF 2025 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
DR. VIDYA K.R
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. DR. V.R.RAJENDRAN, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER
(HEALTH), PALAKKAD - 678 014 RESIDING AT 5C,
BHADRADEEPAM APARTMENTS, DPO ROAD, PALAKKAD
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR
SMT.AMRUTHA SANJEEV
SHRI.VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR
SMT.K.SARITHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2
2025:KER:72997
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES,
GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 DR. ROSH T.V,
DISTRICT PROGRAM MANAGER,
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.M.SALIM
SHRI.R.SRINATH
SRI.K.JALADHARAN
SRI.V.M.JACOB
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).385/2025, THE
COURT ON 6.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
3
2025:KER:72997
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 14TH ASWINA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 385 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.849
OF 2025 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
DR.RAJAN K.R
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MEDICAL
OFFICER/DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
SERVICE,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE(HEALTH) ERNAKULAM-682 011
RESIDING AT VAISHNAVAM (H), MOORKKATTILPADY,
KARIKODU P.O. PERUVA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686610
BY ADVS.
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
4
2025:KER:72997
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES,
GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 DR.VIDYA K.R
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE (HEALTH) PALAKKAD,
PIN - 678001
4 DR. ROSH P.T
DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER,
NHM PALAKKAD OFFICE, THONDIKULAM,
NURANI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678004
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.M.SALIM
SHRI.R.SRINATH
SRI.K.JALADHARAN
SRI.V.M.JACOB
SRI.B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 18.09.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).384/2025, THE
COURT ON 6.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
5
2025:KER:72997
COMMON JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam (for
short 'the Tribunal'), filed OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 and the
applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.849 of 2025 on the file of the very same
Tribunal filed OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the impugned common order dated 15.09.2025
passed by the Tribunal in those original applications. For
convenience, the parties and documents are referred in this
judgment as they are referred in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025, unless
otherwise stated.
2. The petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 was
transferred to Palakkad as District Medical Officer (Health), vide
Annexure A1 order dated 17.11.2023, while she was working in
the cadre of Deputy Director, Directorate of Health Services,
Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, she is entitled
to continue at Palakkad for a period of three years. By Annexure
A2 order dated 24.02.2025, she was transferred and posted as
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
Additional District Medical Officer (Health), Ernakulam. The 3 rd
respondent, who was working as District Programme Manager at
National Health Mission, Palakkad, was promoted and posted in
the place of the petitioner as District Medical Officer (Health) at
Palakkad itself, consequent to the transfer of the petitioner to
Ernakulam. The petitioner contends that since she has not
completed three years in the present station, the 3 rd respondent,
who is a fresh promotee, is liable to be posted wherever there is
an open vacancy. Therefore, Annexure A2 order is illegal. By
Annexure A2 transfer order, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of
2025, who was working as Additional District Medical Officer
(Health), Ernakulam, has been transferred to Idukki as
Superintendent in the District Hospital, Idukki. Challenging the
transfer order, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025 filed
O.A.(EKM)No.338 of 2025 before the Tribunal, and the petitioner
in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 filed O.A.(EKM)No.342 of 2025. The
Tribunal, by way of interim orders, stayed the transfer of the
petitioners in both the original applications. Thereafter, the
original applications were disposed of by a common order dated
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
18.03.2025 with a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and
pass orders on the grievance of the petitioners. Consequently, the
petitioners were heard on 08.04.2025 on behalf of the 1 st
respondent and by Annexure A5 order dated 09.06.2025, their
contentions were rejected. In that circumstance, the petitioners
approached the Tribunal with the respective original applications
filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
3. In O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025, the 1st respondent filed a
reply statement dated 25.06.2025. It is contended by the 1 st
respondent that the General Transfer Guidelines contained in Para
7(ii) of G.O.(P) No.3/2017/P&ARD dated 25.02.2017 are strictly
applicable to transfers made by the Head of the Department and
authorities below the Head of the Department. The said order is
not applicable in the cases where the Government is the
appointing authority. The Deputy Director post is a higher post in
the Health Services Department, and when officers working in this
post are transferred for administrative convenience, it is not right
to raise arguments that they have not completed three years in
the present station. As per Rule 32(b) of Part II KS&SSR, the
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
power to appoint and transfer the Deputy Director is vested with
the Government, who is the appointing authority. The 1 st
respondent further contended that the 3 rd respondent has good
practical experience by working as District Programme Manager in
the National Health Mission, Palakkad. Considering the above
aspect, Annexure A5 order dated 09.06.2025 has been issued in
compliance with Annexure A4 order of the Tribunal, transferring
the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025 as Superintendent,
District Hospital, Idukki, and the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of
2025 as Additional District Medical Officer, Ernakulam, and
appointing the 3rd respondent Assistant Director on deputation as
District Medical Officer, Palakkad. It is contended by the 1 st
respondent that the Apex Court, as well as this High Court, in
several judgments held that the transfer is an incident of service
coming under the domain of Government and that Government
servants did not have any right to claim retention in a station or
to choose the place of posting. It is contended by the 1 st
respondent that the person challenging the transfer ought to
prove on facts that such transfer is prejudicial to the public
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
interest. Interference is justified only in a case of malafide or
infraction of any professed norm or principle. Moreover, in cases
where the career prospects of a person challenging transfer
remain unaffected and no detriment is caused, interference with
the transfer must be eschewed. Evidence is required to prove such
a transfer as prejudicial, and in its absence, interference is not
warranted. Instead of joining the places where they are appointed,
the Medical Officers are trying to cancel the orders and thereby
hindering the smooth functioning of the health department, which
results in administrative difficulty in the Health Services
Department.
4. The 3rd respondent also filed a reply statement dated
17.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025, contending that the
suitability of an officer to be posted in a particular post lies within
the realm of the discretion of the Government. The petitioner is
not to dictate terms in regard to the suitability and the station to
which the incumbent is to be posted. It is further contended by
the 3rd respondent that after the issuance of Annexure A6, the 3 rd
respondent had assumed charge as District Medical Officer
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
(Health), Palakkad, on 10.06.2025, as the petitioner did not
attend the office since 03.06.2025. He was handed over charge
by Deputy District Medical Officer (Health), Palakkad, who was
given the charge of District Medical Officer (Health), Palakkad.
Immediately after assuming charge, the 3 rd respondent had
informed the 2nd respondent as well as the Accountant General
with regard to the matter of assumption of charge as District
Medical Officer (Health), Palakkad. As per the reply statement of
the 3rd respondent, the guidelines governing the transfer exist
only for the sake of guidance and do not confer on the employee
any enforceable right. It is further contended by the 3 rd
respondent that there is no ground of malafides raised by the
petitioner in the original application which may make the transfer
a subject of challenge before a court of law. In the absence of such
a contention, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the
petitioner. Annexure A5 Government order was issued on the
basis of the direction issued by the Tribunal in Annexure A4 order,
after convincing that 3rd respondent was eligible to be posted as
District Medical Officer (Health), Palakkad, and only thereafter,
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
Annexure A6 order was issued.
5. To the reply statements filed by respondents 1 and 3,
the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 21.07.2025 in the original
application. The 1st respondent filed an additional reply statement
dated 28.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025 narrating the key
role of District Programme Manager, National Health Mission, the
post which was held by the 3 rd respondent.
6. In O.A.No.849 of 2025 also the 1st respondent filed a
reply statement dated 12.08.2025 raising almost the very same
contentions as those raised in O.A.(EKM)No.842 of 2025.
7. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated
15.09.2025, dismissed the original applications. Paragraphs 9 to
11 of that order read thus;
"9. The grounds urged for challenging the transfer in both
these cases is violation of guidelines, as they have not
completed three years in the respective stations. The further
contention is that the untimely transfer is ordered to
accommodate a fresh promotee. According to the 1st
respondent the presence of Dr.Rosh, the fresh promotee at
Palakkad would be much helpful for the administration of
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
health department and dealing with health issues in
Palakkad District.
10. When Government categorically states that the
administrative experience of Dr. Rosh is found necessary in
Palakkad District, this Tribunal would not be in a position to
substitute its decision, as transfer and posting of officers are
entirely coming within the executive domain of the
Government. But for the contention that the transfer is
ordered to accommodate Dr. Rosh, there is no allegation of
mala fides. No violation of any statutory rule is also alleged.
11. As held in a series of judgments relied on by the
respondents, for e.g., S.K. Naushad Rahaman and others v.
Union of India and others [(2022)12 SCC 11], N.K. Singh v.
Union of India & others [(1994) 5 SCC 981], Rajendra Roy
v. Union of India & others (AIR 1993 SC 1236], etc., transfer
is an incidence of service. The applicants and 3 rd respondent
are holding High level posts of District Head/equivalent
posts in the Department. An employee does not have any
right to insist for retention of posting in a particular station,
just because he or she did not complete 3 years. In the
absence of any allegation as to mala fides or violation of
statutory rules interference of this Tribunal is not called for.
The Original Applications are accordingly dismissed."
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the
original petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
9. When the learned counsel for the petitioners raised a
contention that the transfer of the petitioners effected was
violating the transfer guidelines issued by the Government with
the sole intention to accommodate the 3 rd respondent at Palakkad,
the learned Senior Government Pleader as well the learned
counsel for the 3rd respondent raised a contention that there is no
malafides in the order of transfer and it is for administrative
convenience the order was issued.
10. It is trite that whether an employee is to be transferred
to a different division, 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 under Article 226
of the Constitution of India would not interfere in the orders of
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
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.
11. 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)
12. 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
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
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)
13. 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)
14. This Court in Mayadevi M.P and another v. Canara
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
Bank and others [2015 (4) KHC 874] held that an order of
transfer cannot be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, in the absence of any specific
allegation of mala fides or at least a prima facie proof of vitiating
circumstances influencing that order of transfer. It is far too late
in the day to assert that, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with an
order of transfer of an employee as if it is sitting in appeal over
such an order issued by the employer. The scope of judicial review
in this area is very limited. Unless mala fides or oblique motives
are specifically pleaded or can necessarily be inferred from the
proof of facts, this Court cannot interfere with an order of transfer
of an employee. Therefore, a mere assertion in the writ petition
that, the orders of transfer are 'vitiated by extraneous
considerations and imbued with mala fides', cannot therefore
sound in realms of mala fides or extraneous considerations or
oblique motives. The concept being basically different, this Court
cannot even draw an inference that the order of transfer issued
by the employer is vitiated by mala fides or on extraneous
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
considerations or with oblique motives, unless it is specifically
pleaded in the writ petition with reliable materials, which are
sufficient to draw an inference of any vitiating circumstances
influencing such an order of transfer.
15. Again, 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 incidence of
service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is
also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer are vitiated by
statutory violations or mala fides, Court will not interfere with the
same.
16. In the instant cases, the challenge raised by the
petitioners is against Annexure A2 transfer order dated
24.02.2025. By the said order, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384
of 2025 is transferred as Additional District Medical Officer
(Health), Ernakulam. The petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of 2025,
who is working in that post, is transferred to Idukki as
Superintendent, District Hospital. The 3rd respondent, who is in
the cadre of Assistant Director working as District Programme
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
Manager, National Health Mission, Palakkad, is promoted and
posted as District Medical Officer, Palakkad. When the Tribunal, by
Annexure A4 order in O.A.(EKM)Nos.342 and 338 of 2025 filed by
the petitioners, directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass
orders on the grievance raised by the petitioners, by Annexure A5
order dated 09.06.2025, the Government considered the matter
in detail and held that though the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.385 of
2025 raised his grievance against transfer on compassionate
ground of illness, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025 did not
raise any valid reasons to retain her at Palakkad. According to the
Government, it was considering the experience of the 3 rd
respondent in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025, as District Programme
Manager, National Health Mission, Palakkad, he is directed to be
retained at Palakkad in the promotion post.
17. 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. Clause (2)
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of
the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for
returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and
prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of
such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and
accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by
clause (4), nothing in Article 227 shall be deemed to confer on a
High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal
constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
18. 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
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
19. 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.
20. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
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.
21. 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
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
22. 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.
23. In the original applications, the pleadings pertaining to
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
malafides is conspicuously absent, except stating a stray sentence
in O.A (EKM) No.849 of 2025 that the order of transfer is vitiated
by malafides. No supporting pleadings to prove this aspect were
produced in the original applications as well as in the original
petitions. According to the Government, which is the appointing
authority of the petitioners, the respective petitioners are posted
to the places concerned to obtain the best service from them,
including from the 3rd respondent, who has sufficient experience
in the field working as District Programme Manager, National
Health Mission, Palakkad. It is true that, as per the Governance
structure, the petitioner in OP(KAT)No.384 of 2025, in her
capacity as the District Medical Officer, is the Convenor of District
Health Mission under the National Health Mission scheme, and the
duty of the 3rd respondent is to assist the convener in arranging
the programmes etc. Even then, the subjective assessment by the
1st respondent regarding the capability of the employees
concerned is not a matter that can be decided in an original
application filed before the Tribunal, without any pleadings to that
effect.
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to say that
the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which
warrants the interference of this Court by exercising the
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India.
In the result, the original petitions stand dismissed. All
pending interlocutory applications stand closed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 384/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 3031/2023/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.
537/2025/H&FWD DATED 24.02.2025ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 IN
OA(EKM)NO:342 OF 2025
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER DATED
18.03.2025 IN OA(EKM)NO:342 OF 2025
Annexure A5 TRUE.COPY.OF.GO(RT)NO:1591/2025/H&FWD
DATED 09.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
Annexure R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGE DATED 10.06.2025 OF DEPUTY
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
PALAKKAD
Annexure R3(b) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO:DMOH-PKD/272/2024-
A1 OF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),
PALAKKAD DATED 10.06.2025
Annexure R3(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO: DHS/9004/2024-ER1
OF 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 10.06.2025
Annexure R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER KEPT
AT THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MEDICAL
OFFICER (HEALTH), PALAKKAD FOR THE MONTH
OF JUNE, 2025
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 IN
OA(EKM) NO:842 OF 2025
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OA (EKM) NO. 842 OF 2025
ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON
BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF RELY STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ANNEXURE SHOWING THE ROLE
AND DUTIES OF THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME
MANAGER AS PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE OF
NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION UNDER THE HEADER
INSTITUTIONAL SETUP UNDER NRHM
OP(KAT)Nos.384 & 385 of 2025
2025:KER:72997
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 385/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT)NO.537/2025/ H & FWD
DATED 24.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.3/2017/DEPARTMENT
OF PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATION DATED
25.02.2017.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES OF
THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF
THE APPLICANT'S WIFE DATED 02.05.2022.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
10.12.24 IN OA NO.1903/2024 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
26.02.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 RUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 IN
O.A(EKM)NO.338/2025 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1591/2025/H&FWD
DATED 09.06.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF
O.A(EKM)NO.849/2025 TOGETHER WITH
ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA(EKM) NO.849/2025
DATED 12.08.25.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.09.2025
IN O.A(EKM)NO.849/2025 OF THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDL.BENCH,
ERNAKULAM.
