[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sudheendrakumar P vs State Of Kerala on 4 February, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
O.P.(KAT)No.44 of 2026 1
2026:KER:9810
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 15TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 44 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2026 IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1158 OF 2025 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
SUDHEENDRAKUMAR P
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O K. PAPPAN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
ERNAKULAM TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION, ERNAKULAM SOUTH,
THEVARA (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER AS DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, AUDIT DIVISION-3, PERUMBAVOOR)
NOW RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM HOUSE,
KOTTAMURI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-,
PIN - 686105
BY ADVS.
SMT.GIRIJA K GOPAL
SMT.K.N.VIGY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN O.A.(EKM):
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX,
STATE GOODS & SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT, PREM NAGAR,
KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695002
O.P.(KAT)No.44 of 2026 2
2026:KER:9810
3 ANIL KUMAR G
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (INTELLIGENCE),
STATE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION,
THATHAMPALLY P.O. ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. PRINCY XAVIER, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(KAT)No.44 of 2026 3
2026:KER:9810
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025
before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench,
Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside
Annexure A4 order dated 25.07.2025 issued by the 1st respondent
State to the extent that the applicant is transferred from Taxpayer
Services Division, Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3,
Perumbavoor; a declaration that the applicant is entitled to be
retained at Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South, since he
has not completed three years tenure in that station and also for
the reason that he is to retire from service within a period of one
year; and an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider
Annexure A3 representation dated 10.06.2025 made before the
2nd respondent at the earliest, within a time frame to be fixed by
the Tribunal.
2. The petitioner-applicant was promoted and posted as
Deputy Commissioner at Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam
South, vide Annexure A2 order dated 26.05.2025. Within a period
2026:KER:9810
of 2 months from the date of joining the present station, he was
ordered to be transferred to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor, vide
Annexure A4 order dated 25.07.2025. According to the applicant,
Annexure A4 order to the extent it relates to his transfer from
Ernakulam South to Perumbavoor is bad for the reason that he
has been shifted out to another station in violation of the
'Minimum Tenure Policy' for transfer in Clause 2(i) of Annexure A5
guidelines for general transfer dated 25.02.2017. At the time of
issuance of Annexure A4 order, the applicant had only 10 months
to retire from service. Therefore, the order of transfer violates
Clause 10(xi) of Annexure A5 guidelines, which stipulates that
those with less than 2 years to retire should be given preference
for their choice station. Annexure A4 order is issued in violation of
Clause 10(viii) of Annexure A5 guidelines, which stipulates that
postings on account of promotion should be filled up first by
posting the promotees against existing vacancies. Annexure A4
order does not specify the nature of transfer, whether it is on
option/compulsory/ compassionate/in Public Interest, as required
to be done under Clause 12(i) of Annexure A5 guidelines.
Moreover, respondents 1 and 2 failed to maintain an electronic
2026:KER:9810
database, including particulars of transfers and appointments of
employees, as required under Clause 1(iv) of Annexure A5
guidelines, to avoid the discrepancies that may occur on account
of the violation of the said guidelines. According to the applicant,
as evident from Annexure A4 order, 21 'existing vacancies' were
available to accommodate 13 persons posted as Deputy
Commissioners on promotion. Therefore, there is no reason why
the applicant, who has already been promoted and posted as
Deputy Commissioner, Taxpayer Services Division, Emakulam
South, vide Annexure A2 order, is transferred to another 'existing
vacancy' by Annexure A4 order, which could have been filled up
by a fresh promotee.
3. On 28.07.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025
came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was
directed to get instructions as to whether the applicant's transfer
was necessary, as he is due to retire on 03.05.2026. By Ext.P2
interim order dated 28.07.2025, it was ordered that, in case the
applicant as well as his substitute are not relieved, they shall be
allowed to continue in their respective stations. The said interim
order was extended from time to time.
2026:KER:9810
4. In O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, the 1st respondent filed
Ext.P3 reply statement dated 13.11.2025, opposing the reliefs
sought for, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) judgment of a
Division Bench of this Court dated 10.04.2025 in O.P.(KAT)No.163
of 2025. The applicant filed Ext.P4 rejoinder 20.01.2026,
producing therewith Annexure A6 order dated 16.10.2024 of the
Tribunal in O.A.No.875 of 2024.
5. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal
dismissed O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, by Ext.P5 order dated
02.02.2026, declining interference on the order of transfer of the
applicant vide Annexure A4. Paragraphs 5, 6 and also the last
paragraph of that order read thus;
"5. Referring to the representation submitted by the
applicant before the second respondent, learned Counsel for
the applicant argued that, as the applicant has been
continuing in Ernakulam on the basis of the interim order, it
is only proper that he be allowed to retire from that station
in May 2026. However, according to the learned Government
Pleader, the applicant cannot be permitted to continue in the
present station. It is stated that the applicant's posting in
Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam, as per Annexure A2
was on promotion and therefore the said posting was liable
to be reviewed and he has to join the transferred station. It
2026:KER:9810
was also argued that the applicant was transferred to the
Audit Division at Perumbavoor. It is further argued that in
the absence of any allegation of mala fides, the order of
transfer is not liable to be interfered with.
6. As contended by the learned Government Pleader, the
only ground for challenging the impugned transfer is the
violation of guidelines. There is absolutely no averment
regarding mala fides. In the light of the judgment dated
13.01.2026 in O.P.(CAT)No.3 of 2026, transfers are not
liable to be interfered with, except on proved allegations
relating to mala fides. The Division Bench, after referring to
a series of judgments of the Apex Court, held that transfer
is only an incidence of service and non-completion of tenure
or personal inconvenience cannot be a ground for
interference, and that transfer shall not be interfered with
on violation of guidelines. It is settled law that an order of
transfer can be successfully challenged only if it violates the
statutory provision or on mala fides or if it is passed by an
incompetent authority. There is no averment regarding mala
fides. The competence of the first respondent in issuing the
order of transfer is also not in dispute. There is no violation
of any statutory rule also. The applicant is holding the post
of Deputy Commissioner. He does not have any right to
insist that he should be posted in any particular station. The
transfer is ordered immediately after his posting on
promotion. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the
order of transfer.
The Original Application is accordingly dismissed."
6. Challenging Ext.P5 order dated 02.02.2026 of the
2026:KER:9810
Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, the petitioner-applicant is
before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant
and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and
2.
8. The issue that requires consideration in this original
petition is whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 order
dated 02.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025,
in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would
submit that, the specific contention raised by the applicant as to
violation of various clauses of Annexure A5 transfer guidelines
were not properly considered by the Tribunal while declining
interference on the order of transfer of the applicant vide
Annexure A4. The said order of transfer, to the extent of
transferring the applicant from Taxpayer Services Division,
Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor, is vitiated by
malice in law. Therefore, Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal is liable to
2026:KER:9810
be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
10. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that valid reasons have been stated by the
Tribunal in Ext.P5 order for not interfering with Annexure A4 order,
to the extent the applicant is ordered to be transferred from
Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3,
Perumbavoor. Since the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order
is neither perverse nor patently illegal, no interference of this
Court is warranted in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. As already noticed hereinbefore, the contentions raised
by the petitioner-applicant in O.A(EKM)No.1158 of 2025 are to the
effect that Annexure A4 order of transfer to the extent the
applicant is ordered to be transferred from Taxpayer Services
Division, Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor is
violative of the 'Minimum Tenure Policy' for transfer in Clause
(2)(i) of Annexure A5 guidelines for general transfer. The said
order also violates Clause (10)(xi) of the said guidelines, which
stipulates that those with less than two years to retire should be
2026:KER:9810
given preference for their choice station; Clause (10)(viii), which
stipulates that postings on account of promotion should be filled
up first by posting the promotees against the existing vacancies;
Clause (12)(i), since the order of transfer does not specify the
nature of transfer, whether it is on option/compulsory/
compassionate/in public interest; and Clause (1)(iv), since
respondents 1 and 2 failed to maintain an electronic database
including particulars of transfers and appointment of employees,
to avoid discrepancies that may occur on account of violation of
the guidelines in Annexure A5.
12. In State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav [(1995) 3 SCC
270], the Apex Court held that the courts or tribunals are not
appellate forums to decide on transfers of Officers on
administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take
appropriate decision, and such decision shall stand unless they are
vitiated by mala fides or by extraneous considerations without any
factual foundation. On the facts of the case at hand, the Apex
Court held that the orders of transfer having been issued on
administrative grounds, the expediency of those orders cannot be
examined by the court. In the said decision the Apex Court held
2026:KER:9810
further that the court cannot go into the question of relative
hardship. It is for the administration to consider the facts of a
given case and mitigate the real hardship in the interest of good
and efficient administration.
13. In Somesh Tiwari v. Union of India [(2009) 2 SCC
592] the Apex Court held that an order or transfer passed on
material, which was non-existent not only suffers from total non-
application of mind on the part of the authorities, but also suffers
from malice in law. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the said decision read
thus;
'16. Indisputably an order of transfer is an administrative
order. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that transfer,
which is ordinarily an incident of service should not be
interfered with, save in cases where inter alia mala fide on
the part of the authority is proved. Mala fide is of two kinds
- one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order
in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it
was not based on any factor germane for passing an order
of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on the
allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous
complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled
to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies, but
it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed
by way of or in lieu of punishment. When an order of transfer
2026:KER:9810
is passed in lieu of punishment, the same is liable to be set
aside being wholly illegal.
17. An enquiry was initiated against the appellant in terms
of the allegations contained in an anonymous letter. Having
regard to the directives of the Central Vigilance Commission,
no enquiry could have been initiated against him, but it is
beyond any doubt or dispute that in the said enquiry, the
allegations were found to be untrue. Despite the same not
only an order of transfer was passed but to a station, which,
according to the respondents themselves, was "harsh".'
14. In Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath
Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437] the Apex Court discussed the
concept of 'malice in law'. It was held that 'legal malice' or 'malice
in law' means something done without legal excuse. It is an act
done wrongfully and willfully, without reasonable or probable
cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling or spite. It
is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. Where
malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal
ill will or spite on the part of the State. It is an act which is taken
with an oblique or indirect object. It means exercise of statutory
power for 'purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended'.
It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another,
a deprived inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the
2026:KER:9810
rights of others, which intend is manifested by its injurious acts.
Passing an order for unauthorised purpose constitutes malice in
law.
15. In Gopinathan M. v. State of Kerala [2014 (4) KLT
285], a Division Bench of this Court in which one among us [Anil
K. Narendran, J.] was a party, held that it is trite law that transfer
is an incident of service and an employee working on a
transferable post cannot claim, as a matter of right, that he should
be retained in a particular post or at a particular place. It is the
choice of the employer to determine how long the service of an
employee is required in a particular post or at a particular place.
The order of transfer does not affect any legal rights of the
employee, and the court or tribunal cannot interfere with an order
of transfer or posting, which is made in public interest or on
administrative exigency. However, if the power of transfer is
abused or the transfer is not made in public interest, but for
collateral purposes and with oblique motive, the order would stand
vitiated, warranting interference of the court or tribunal.
16. In Gopinathan M. [2014 (4) KLT 285], on the facts
of the case at hand, the Division Bench noticed that a perusal of
2026:KER:9810
Annexure A5 enquiry report submitted by the 3rd respondent
therein would show that based on the enquiry conducted on
26.06.2012, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that there
was no serious lapse on the part of the petitioners therein in
discharging their duties and the leave availed by them are lawful.
In the enquiry report it was also found that the petitioners, who
were working as HSA (Natural Science) and HSA (Physical
Science), respectively, in the Government Higher Secondary
School, Chettiyankinar have completed their portions in time, by
taking special classes, which were proved from the statements
given by the students. In such circumstances, the conclusion in
Annexure A5 enquiry report was that there was no truth in the
complaint made by the parents and there are no lapses on the
part of the petitioners in discharging their duties, warranting any
disciplinary proceedings. The details of the leave availed by the
petitioners, made it abundantly clear that the leave for 42 days
and 33 days respectively, referred to Annexure A5 enquiry report,
the petitioners were either on eligible leave or on other duty in
connection with arts festival, youth festival, teachers' training, etc.
It was also not in dispute that the percentage of marks in the
2026:KER:9810
subjects handled by the petitioners was high during the relevant
period and it has gone up to 100% in the subsequent academic
year. In addition to that, as evident from Annexure A6 resolution,
the Executive Committee of the Parent Teacher Association
unanimously resolved against the transfer of the petitioners from
Government Higher Secondary School, Chettiyankinar, which also
indicates that the complaints made against the petitioners are
baseless and the parents of the students have no connection
whatsoever with those complaints. It is in such circumstances, the
Division Bench arrived at a conclusion that Annexure A1 order of
transfer was issued without any factual foundation or legal
support. The said order passed on materials which were non-
existent, not only suffers from total non-application of mind but
also from malice in law, and that the said order is only a colourable
exercise of power by the 3rd respondent.
17. In Santhosh K. and another v. Chief Engineer
(HRM), Kerala State Electricity Board [2013 (4) KHC 624],
a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of the transfer
guidelines of employees issued by the Kerala State Electricity
Board (KSEB), held that it is salutary that the contents of both the
2026:KER:9810
KSEB orders cannot be treated as either statutory, or amounting
to conditions of service. They are essentially guidelines, relating
to transfers of employees of KSEB. The realm of judicial
intervention in such matters gets confined to a scrutiny as to
whether there is any vitiating element of mala fides, malice,
substantial legal and factual perversity or arbitrariness,
recognisable on the touch stones of the Fundamental Rights, as
enshrined in the Constitution, to visit the executive decision of the
KSEB as the employer.
18. In the instant case, the challenge made against
Annexure A4 order dated 25.07.2025 of the 1st respondent to the
extent the applicant is ordered to be transferred from Taxpayer
Services Division, Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3,
Perumbavoor is on the ground that it is in violation of the
'Minimum Tenure Policy' for transfer in Clause (2)(i) of Annexure
A5 guidelines for general transfer as well as Clauses 10(viii),
10(xi), 12(i) of the said guidelines. The grounds raised in
O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, which are reiterated in this OP(KAT),
would not make out a case of exercise of any statutory power by
the 1st respondent State for purposes foreign to those for which it
2026:KER:9810
is in law intended or an act done by the 1st respondent State
wrongfully and willfully, without reasonable or probable cause, to
disregard any legal rights of the petitioner-applicant, in order to
attract malice in law.
19. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.
v. Shri Bhagwan [(2001) 8 SCC 574], the Apex Court held that
unless the order of transfer is shown to be an outcome of mala
fide exercise of powers or in violation of the statutory provision, it
cannot be subjected to judicial interference, as a matter of routine.
In the said decision, it was held further, that the Courts or
Tribunals cannot substitute their own decision in the matter of
transfer for that of the management.
20. In Namrata Verma v. State of U.P. [2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3337], the Apex Court held that it is not for the
employee to insist to transfer him and/or not to transfer him at a
particular place. It is for the employer to transfer an employee
considering the requirement.
21. As noticed by the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order dated
02.02.2026 in O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025, the ground raised in
the original application for challenging Annexure A4 order of
2026:KER:9810
transfer, to the extent it affects the applicant, is that the transfer
is in violation of various clauses of Annexure A5 guidelines for
transfer. There is absolutely no averment in the original application
regarding mala fides. In Ext.P5 order, while declining interference
on Annexure A4 order of transfer, the Tribunal has also placed
reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
Niumathulla A.K. v. The Administrator, Union Territory of
Lakshadweep and others [2026:KER:2756] - judgment dated
13.01.2026 in O.P.(CAT)No.3 of 2026. In the said decision, placing
reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Namrata Verma
[2021 SCC OnLine SC 3337] as well as the earlier decisions of
the Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court held that transfer
is only an incident of service. Only on the ground of personal
inconvenience or that the tenure has not been completed, no order
of transfer can be interfered with. It is for the employer to transfer
and employee considering the requirement. Unless and until the
transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any
statutory provision, the court cannot interfere with the order of
transfer. Therefore, the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order
dated 02.02.2026 to decline interference on Annexure A4 order of
2026:KER:9810
transfer, to the extent the petitioner-applicant is ordered to be
transferred from Taxpayer Services Division, Ernakulam South to
Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor, cannot be said to be either
perverse or patently illegal.
22. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with 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.
23. 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
2026:KER:9810
subordinate to the High Court.
24. 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.
25. 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
2026:KER:9810
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.
26. 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.
27. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
2026:KER:9810
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in
the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of
its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can
be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative
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 Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest
error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently
unreasonable, or the decision of the 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.
28. Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions
referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that, when the
reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P5 order dated 02.02.2026 in
O.A.(EKM)No.1158 of 2025 for declining interference on Annexure
A4 order of transfer to the extent the petitioner-applicant is
2026:KER:9810
ordered to be transferred from Taxpayer Services Division,
Ernakulam South to Audit Division-3, Perumbavoor, is neither
perverse nor patently illegal, no interference of this Court under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted on the said
order passed by the Tribunal.
In the result, this original petition fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2026:KER:9810
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 44 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.[P] NO. 90/2025/TAXES
DATED 5.5.2025 EVIDENCING THE SELECT LIST OF
OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION TO THE CADRE OF DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER IN THE STATE GOODS AND SERVICES
TAX DEPARTMENT PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL
PROMOTION COMMITTEE [ HIGHER ] HELD ON
25.02.22025 FOR THE YEAR 2025
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.[RT] NO.495/2025/TAXES
DATED 26.5.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.06.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY G.O.[RT] NO. 695/2025/TAXES DATED
25.07.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.[P] NO. 3/2017/P&ARD
DATED 25.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure R1 [ a ] TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
IN OP [ KAT ] 163 OF 2025
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
16.10.2024 IN OA 875/2024 PASSED BY THIS
HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF O.A. NO.1158/2025 ON THE FILES
OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.7.2025
PASSED BY THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN O.A.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ( ALONG WITH ANNEXURE
PRODUCED THEREWITH) IN O.A. NO.1158/2025 ON
THE FILES OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 20.1.2026
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.2.2026 IN
OA[EKM ] 1158/2025 ON THE FILES OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
