[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Imrose Elias Navas E vs Vijin Dev on 17 February, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.55 of 2026
2026:KER:14712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 28TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 55 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN O.A.NO.1254 OF 2022 AND
ORDER DATED 19.12.2025 IN M.A.NO.2228 OF 2025 IN O.A.NO.1254 OF
2022
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 IN O.A.:
1 IMROSE ELIAS NAVAS E.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.LATE E. MAMMOOTTY, WORKING AS RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, MANNARKKAD RANGE FOREST OFFICE, ARANYAKAM,
MANNARKKAD PO, PALAKKAD DIST. PIN 678582. KAYALOTTIL
HOUSE, KALLARATTIKKAL, URANGATTIRI PO, MALAPPURAM
DIST., PIN - 673639
2 ARUN K. NAIR
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE KRISHNANKUTTY S., WORKING AS RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, [PRESENTLY UNDER SUSPENSION] VALLAKADAVU
RANGE FOREST OFFICE, VALLAKKADAVU FOREST RANGE,
PERIYAR PO, VANDIPERIYAR, IDUKKI DIST. PIN
685533.RESIDING AT MANAKKAMARIYIL [SNRA-25], SUBHASH
NAGAR, PETTAH, POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN -
682038
3 PREM SHAMIR K.P.
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O.PREMACHANDRAN, WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
THAMARASSERY RANGE FOREST OFFICE, THAMARASSERY FOREST
RANGE, THAMARASSERY PO, KOZHIKODE DIST. PIN 673573,
RESIDING AT KURUMBHA HOUSE, BEYPORE PO, KOZHIKODE
DIST., PIN - 673015
4 MOHAMMED RAPHY K.M.
2
OP(KAT)No.55 of 2026
2026:KER:14712
AGED 37 YEARS
C/O. MUHAMMED KASSIM, WORKING AS ASSISTANT WILDLIFE
WARDEN, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT WILDLIFE WARDEN,
CHIMMONY RANGE, CHIMMONY DAM PO, PALAPPILLY, THRISSUR
DIST. PIN 680304, RESIDING AT KARUPPAM VEETTIL HOUSE,
MULLAKKARA, PANANCHERY, THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680652
5 SIJO SAMUEL
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O. P.G. SAMUEL WORKING AS RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE, THODUPUZHA FOREST RANGE,
THODUPUZHA EAST PO, IDUKKI DIST., RESIDING AT
PORATHUKARAN HOUSE, 4/279-1, S.N. ROAD,
CHELAKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR PO, THIRSSUR DIST., PIN -
680005
BY ADV SHRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/APPLICANT/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN O.A.:
1 VIJIN DEV
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. VASUDEVAN, RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SOCIAL FORESTRY
WING, PALAKKAD DIST. PIN 678002, RESIDENT OF AMBADI
HOUSE, KALLAMPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DIST. PIN
679329.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695001
3 PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIST., PIN - 695014
4 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
[ADMINISTRATION],
FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DIST., PIN - 695014
5 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST., PIN - 695001
3
OP(KAT)No.55 of 2026
2026:KER:14712
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A. J. VARGHESE, SR. GP;
SRI. V. VARGHESE FOR R1
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R5
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 17.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
4
OP(KAT)No.55 of 2026
2026:KER:14712
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Additional respondents 5 to 9 in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 on
the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench at
Thiruvananthapuram, are before this Court in this original
petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
seeking an order to set aside Ext.P7 order dated 19.12.2025 of
the Tribunal in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 and also Ext.P8 order dated
19.12.2025 in M.A.No.2228 of 2025 in that original application,
which was one filed by the 1st respondent herein-applicant, who
is a Range Forest Officer in the Kerala Forest Department, who
entered service pursuant to the process for direct recruitment by
the Kerala Public Service Commission, pursuant to which
Annexure A1 ranked list with category No.293/2011 was
published by the Public Service Commission, which came into
force with effect from 19.03.2012. In O.A.No.1254 of 2022,
which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of
the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant sought for
an order to quash Annexure A16 communication dated
23.09.2021 and Annexure A18 communication dated 17.05.2022
issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
2026:KER:14712
(Administration), Annexure A17 Government letter dated
12.07.2021 and Annexure A19 letter dated 20.06.2022 of the
Director of State Forest Training Centre; a declaration that the
applicant is entitled to get seniority in service as Range Forest
Officer, by fixing his seniority notionally, with retrospective effect
from 31.03.2012, the date of advice of Sri. Mohammed Raphy
K.M., rank No.8A in Annexure A1 ranked list, and as modified by
Annexure A3 erratum notification dated 21.12.2013 issued by
the Public Service Commission, who was advised against the turn
of the applicant from Annexure A1 ranked list and that, the
applicant is entitled to get the benefit of service conditions those
were in vogue at that time, and consequently, direct the
respondents therein to take necessary steps granting the
applicant all such benefits, including the benefit of statutory
pension; and direct the Kerala Public Service Commission to
intimate respondents 1 to 3 therein regarding the advice position
of the applicant, if he was advised at the right time on
31.03.2012, by including his name as rank No.8A in Annexure A1
ranked list.
2. O.A.No.1254 of 2022 was originally allowed by Ext.P4
2026:KER:14712
order dated 16.01.2025 of the Tribunal, whereby Annexures A16
to A19 were set aside and the 1st respondent State was directed
to consider the claim of the applicant for notional seniority above
Sri.Mohammed Raphy K.M., in the light of the law laid down by
the Apex Court in Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana
[(2008) 7 SCC 728], Jayachandran C. v. State of Kerala
[(2020) 5 SCC 230], Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service
Commission [(2000) 8 SCC 182] and Lakshmana Rao
Yadavalli v. State of Andra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 393],
after affording him an opportunity of hearing. The applicant was
directed to submit a fresh representation raising all the
grievances before the 1st respondent State, within a period of
three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and
the 1st respondent State shall pass orders on the same, within a
period of two months from the date of its receipt, if necessary,
after hearing Sri. Muhammed Raphy K.M., also. The Tribunal
ordered that the applicant shall not be compelled to get enrolled
in National Pension Scheme, in the meanwhile.
3. Seeking review of Ext.P4 order dated 16.01.2025 in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022, the petitioners herein filed R.A.No.17 of
2026:KER:14712
2025, invoking the provisions under Section 22(3)(f) of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the review application it
was contended that, though the claim of the applicant in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022 was for notional seniority above the review
applicants, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed that original
application on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties.
That review application was allowed by Ext.P6 order dated
17.11.2025 of the Tribunal. The order dated 17.11.2025 of the
Tribunal in R.A.No.17 of 2025 reads thus;
"Heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. In Annexure RA1 order, this Tribunal has found that
applicant is entitled to get seniority above Shri Mohamed
Raphy.
3. Since the review applicants were not in the party array
of the Original Application, I find it appropriate to allow the
Review Application and to re-hear the Original Application.
Annexure RA1 order is recalled. The Review Application is
allowed.
Post the Original Application for re-hearing."
4. Thereafter, the applicant in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 filed
M.A.No.2228 of 2025 seeking an order to implead the review
applicants in R.A.No.17 of 2025, the petitioners herein, as
additional respondents 5 to 9 in the original application. On
2026:KER:14712
19.12.2025, the Tribunal by Ext.P7 order disposed of
O.A.No.1254 of 2022 by setting aside Annexures A16 to A19
with consequential directions. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and also the
last paragraph of Ext.P7 order read thus;
"7. Heard Sri.Fathahudeen, the learned counsel for the
applicant and Smt.Sreeja Thulasi, the learned Senior
Government Pleader. Relying on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh Narwal &
Others v. State of Haryana & Others [(2008) 7 SCC
728] the learned counsel for the applicant argued that the
applicant should be given all benefits as if he was advised
and appointed immediately before the appointment of rank
No.8A. It was argued that, but for the inordinate delay in
releasing the result of re-checking, he would have been
advised as early as on 31.03.2012 in preference to
Sri.Mohammed Raphy. The default committed by the PSC,
resulted in the denial of advice to him at the appropriate
time. Therefore, the applicant cannot be penalized for no
fault on his part.
8. Having considered the contentions on both sides, it is
seen that the direction of this Tribunal in Annexure A9, to
the respondents, was to remedy the injustice done to the
applicant on account of denial of appointment in
accordance with his merit. But it is seen that the 1 st
respondent has rejected the request of the applicant
without due application of mind. Therefore, a decision is
required afresh.
2026:KER:14712
9. As applicant is seeking all benefits including assignment
of seniority in preference to Sri. Mohammed Raphy, a
decision has to be taken after hearing the applicant and
the parties who are likely to be affected. The applicant has
filed an application for impleading the affected parties. We
are not issuing notice to them, as we are remitting the
matter to 1st respondent, who has to take a decision with
notice to all. Therefore, the additional respondents would
be free to raise all their contentions before the 1 st
respondent. It is submitted that applicant is already
submitted a supplementary representation in the year
2025.
10. In the result, Annexure A17, Annexures A16, A18 and
A19 are set aside. There shall be a direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider the claim of the applicant for
notional seniority above Sri.Mohamed Raphy, afresh after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the
additional respondents and all those who are likely to be
affected, and to pass orders thereon within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till
such time, applicant shall not be compelled to get enrolled
in the National Pension System.
Original Application is disposed of accordingly."
5. Thereafter, by Ext.P8 order dated 19.12.2025 the
Tribunal allowed M.A.No.2228 of 2025 filed for impleading the
petitioners herein as additional respondents 5 to 9 in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022. The said order in M.A.No.2228 of 2025
2026:KER:14712
read thus;
"Impleading allowed. In view of the final orders issued
notice is not issued to the additional respondents. Registry
to incorporate the impleadment."
6. We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners-additional respondents 5 to 9 in O.A.No.1254 of
2022, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-applicant, the
learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4 and
also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service
Commission for the 5th respondent.
7. The issue that requires consideration in this original
petition is as to whether Ext.P7 order dated 19.12.2025 of the
Tribunal in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 and Ext.P8 order dated
19.12.2025 in M.A.No.2228 of 2025 in that original application
can be sustained in law.
8. 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.
2026:KER:14712
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
2026:KER:14712
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
2026:KER:14712
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 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
2026:KER:14712
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.
14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioners-additional respondents 5 to 9 in O.A.No.1254
of 2022 and also the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-
applicant addressed arguments touching the merits of the claim
made by the applicant for notional seniority with reference to the
declaratory relief sought for in that original application. We do
not propose to consider the rival contentions on the aforesaid
claim made by the applicant in this original petition filed invoking
the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
15. It is not in dispute that the claim for notional seniority
made by the applicant in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 with reference to
the declaratory relief sought for in that original application will
2026:KER:14712
adversely affect the review applicants in R.A.No.17 of 2025. It is
for that reason, that by Ext.P6 order dated 17.11.2025, the
Tribunal allowed that review application, whereby Ext.P4 order
originally passed in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 was recalled.
Thereafter, the applicant in O.A.No.1254 of 2022 filed
M.A.No.2228 of 2025 seeking an order to implead the review
applicants as additional respondents 5 to 9 in that original
application. On 19.12.2025, the Tribunal passed Ext.P7 order in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022 whereby Annexures A16 to A19 were set
aside and the 1st respondent State (2nd respondent herein) is
directed to consider the claim made by the applicant for notional
seniority above Sri. Mohammed Raphy K.M., afresh after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the
additional respondents and those who are likely to be affected.
Thereafter, by Ext.P8 order the Tribunal allowed M.A.No.2228 of
2025, with an observation that in view of the final orders issued
[i.e., Ext.P7 order in O.A.No.1254 of 2022], notice is not issued
to the additional respondents. In paragraph 8 of Ext.P7 order,
the Tribunal observed that the direction contained in Annexure
A9 order dated 01.06.2016 in O.A.No.589 of 2015 to the official
2026:KER:14712
respondents was to remedy the injustice done to the applicant
on account of denial of appointment in accordance with his
merit. But it is seen that, the 1st respondent State has rejected
the request of the applicant without due application of mind.
Therefore, a decision is required afresh.
16. Since the disposal of O.A.No.1254 of 2022 by Ext.P7
order dated 19.12.2025 is without notice to the review
applicants in R.A.No.17 of 2025, who were sought to be
impleaded as additional respondents 5 to 9 by filing M.A.No.2228
of 2025, the said order is vitiated by the principles of natural
justice and on that sole ground the same is liable to be set aside.
Ext.P8 order dated 19.12.2025 in M.A.No.2228 of 2025 to the
extent it is ordered that in view of the final orders issued [i.e.,
Ext.P7 order in O.A.No.1254 of 2022], notice is not issued to the
additional respondents, cannot also be sustained in law and the
same is also liable to be set aside.
In the result, this original petition is disposed of by setting
aside Ext.P7 order dated 19.12.2025 of the Tribunal in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022, on the ground that the same is issued in
violation of the principles of natural justice, and Ext.P8 order
2026:KER:14712
dated 19.12.2025 in M.A.No.2228 of 2025 to the extent
indicated hereinbefore. The Tribunal shall pass fresh orders in
O.A.No.1254 of 2022 with notice to the applicant, respondents 1
to 4 and also additional respondents 5 to 9, as expeditiously as
possible.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
2026:KER:14712
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 55 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.117/12/SSVI
UNDER CATEGORY NO.293/2011, WHICH WAS
BROUGHT INTO FORCE W.E.F. 19/3/2012 OF THE
KPSC
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.E.R.XII(1)/59/2012/EW2 DATED 21/12/2013
OF THE KPSC
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION
NO.SSVI/RFO/DIRECT & BY TRA/12/GW DATED
21/12/2013 OF THE KPSC
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART UNDER
FILE NO.RIC(1)7174/12/GW UNDER CATEGORY
NO.293/2011 SHOWING DATE OF ADVICE AS
26/3/2012 OF THE KPSC
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART UNDER
FILE NO/RIC(1)7174/12/GW UNDER CATEGORY
NO.293/2011 SHOWING DATE OF ADVICE AS
31/3/2012 OF THE KPSC
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.10436/R1/14/P&ARD
DATED 04/10/2014 OF THE P&ARD DEPARTMENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE LETTER UNDER FILE
NO.RIC(1)/7174/12/GW DATED 10/11/2014 OF THE
KPSC
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
26/11/2014 IN O.A. NO.2273/2014 OF THE
HON'BLE KAT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
15/05/2015 IN O.A.NO.2273/2014 OF THE
HON'BLE KAT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF FINAL
ORDER DATED 01/06/2016 IN O.A.NO.589/2015 OF
THE HON'BLE KAT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF G.O.[MS] NO.1/2017/FOREST DATED
03/01/2017 OF GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.D1-38550/15 DATED
20/08/2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-85293/2019
DATED 03/11/2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 31/01/2021
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
20/08/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
2026:KER:14712
THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23/03/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
THE SECRETARY, KPSC
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D1-103190/2019
DATED 23/09/2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F3/83/2021/FOREST
DATED 12/07/2021 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D4-2104/2022
DATED 17/05/2022 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D2-819/2022 DATED
20/06/2022 OF THE DIRECTOR OF STATE FOREST
TRAINING CENTRE
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
1254/2022 DATED 12/07/2022 ALONG WITH
ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT OF THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.1254/2022
DATED 16/1/2025 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPLICATION
NO.17/2025 WITHOUT ANNEXURE RA1 ORDER OF THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY ORDER DATED 17/11/2025 IN R.A.
NO.17/2025 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/12/2025 OF
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-12-2025 IN
M.A NO:2228 OF 2025 IN O.A 1254 OF 2022 OF
THE HONOURABLE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-01-2026
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS
