[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Saju K.G vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
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 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 500 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.180 OF
2025 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(ADDITIONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
DR. SAJU K.G
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O KUNJAMMA, WORKING AS CONSULTANT ENT, HEALTH &
FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GENERAL HOSPITAL THRISSUR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, (PIN) 680001., RESIDING AT ANJALI
HOUSE, TD ROAD, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM, KERALA., PIN -
682011
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.C.GOVINDASWAMY
SMT.KALA T.GOPI
SHRI.KAILESH T. GOPI
SMT.NISHITHA BALACHANDRAN
SMT.ANNA REJI
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 STATE OF KERALA
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA., PIN - 695035
2
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
3 STATE OF KERALA
THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 680001
4 STATE OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN - 682011
5 DR. NARAYANAN
ENT CONSULTANT, GENERAL HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
18.12.2025, THE COURT ON 5.1.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.(EKM) No.180 of 2025 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam
(the 'Tribunal' in short) filed this original petition, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 21.07.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner is presently working as a Consultant ENT at General
Hospital Thrissur. The petitioner is getting superannuation on
31.05.2026 and has less than 2 years of service. Further, the
petitioner belongs to the scheduled caste category. The
petitioner's wife is working in Thrissur District, and their only
daughter is studying in Ernakulam District. The petitioner is having
a preferential right and claim as per the General Rules of transfer
guidelines and norms. But, a draft list was prepared by rejecting
the claims of the petitioner, and hence the petitioner has preferred
appeals before respondents 1 and 2. But, shockingly, the
respondents have sanctioned a transfer order by posting the 5 th
respondent to General Hospital Ernakulam. The petitioner has a
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
preferential right and claim over the 5th respondent for getting
transferred to the General Hospital, Ernakulam. Further, the
petitioner has completed 3 years of service at General Hospital
Thrissur, and the 5th respondent has completed only 1 year of
service at General Hospital Kottayam. On 04.10.2024, the Health
and Family Welfare Department issued Annexure A6, by
sanctioning General Transfer of the Consultant (ENT) Medical
officers of the Department. The above order is violating the
principles of law and violating the General Transfer guidelines and
their attached preferential criteria. Aggrieved by the above
Government Order, the petitioner has approached the Tribunal and
subsequently filed Annexure A7 statutory appeal to the 1 st
respondent. Vide Annexure A8 order dated 08.10.2024, the
Tribunal directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders
on Annexure A8 appeal at the earliest. But, the 1st respondent
passed Annexure A9 order dated 06.01.2025 in a mechanical and
illegal manner without considering the contentions of the
petitioner. Hence, the petitioner-applicant approached the Tribunal
with the original application filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
"i. Quash Annexure A9 order of the 1st respondent by finding
that it is illegal.
ii. Quash Annexure A2 draft list and A6 final transfer order
by finding it as illegal, to the extent that it violates the
principles of natural justice to the applicant and it is passed
against the provisions of law.
iii. Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and allow the
contentions and claims of the applicant, raised in Annexure
A4, A5 and A7 appeals, by giving preferential rights to the
applicant as per the Annexure A1 guidelines for General
Transfer for the year 2024 issued by the Health and Family
Welfare Department.
iv. Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give transfer and
posting to the applicant to General Hospital Ernakulam from
General Hospital Thrissur, forthwith by giving preferential
rights to the applicant as per the Annexure A1 guidelines for
General Transfer for the year 2024 issued by the Health and
Family Welfare Department.
v. Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to give transfer and posting
to the applicant to General Hospital Ernakulam from General
Hospital Thrissur, forthwith by giving preferential rights to
the applicant as per the Annexure A1 guidelines for General
Transfer for the year 2024 issued by the Health and Family
Welfare Department and by finding that the applicant is
having preferential right over the 5th respondent.
vi. Direct the respondents 1 and 2 not to transfer and post
the 5th respondent in General Hospital Ernakulam and to find
it as illegal by declaring that the 5th respondent is not eligible
to get transfer and posting through the general transfer of
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
the year 2024".
3. In the original application, the 5th respondent filed a
reply statement dated 26.02.2025 producing therewith Annexures
R5(a) to R5(g) documents. Similarly, the 1st respondent also filed
a reply statement dated 27.06.2025, producing therewith
Annexure R1(a) document. Meanwhile, the 1st respondent issued
Ext.P5 order dated 02.07.2025 by extending the work
arrangement of the petitioner at Ernakulam General Hospital, for
a period of six months from 02.07.2025.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the
materials on record, by the impugned order dated 21.07.2025, the
Tribunal dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 6 to 8 and
the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"6. The applicant has a contention that he has got a
preferential right to be posted in his home District in view
of his impending retirement in 2026. The learned counsel
for the 5th respondent, relying on the judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Balan.C. v. Union of lndia
[2024 (1) KHC 64] argued that the applicant who was in
Ernakulam for more than 10 years, cannot have any
preference for a posting in Ernakulam over and above the
statutory rights of the son of the 5th respondent. ln the
judgment in Balan's Case, it was held as follows:
"11. Thus, the question arises whether absence of the
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
petitioner would deprive the child, the environment he
enjoyed in equal measures with others. Considering the
age and other factors, it cannot be said that his wife
would be able to adequately maintain the child. lf any
of the rights of the disabled child is denied by his
absence, going by Section 5 of Chapter ll of PWD Act,
the transfer order passed, without adverting to such
right of the child, becomes illegal. ln the normal routine
of matter an organization is not expected to have a
consideration of the personal matters of an employee.
However, when such personal matters are intertwined
with the rights conferred under law, the organization is
bound to address such matters and make sure that the
transfer would not affect the child's best interest".
7. The respondents 1 and 2 are bound to see that the
disabled child of the 5th respondent is given reasonable
accommodation, by ensuring the presence of the applicant
near him, in his home town.
8. ln the above said circumstances, it can be seen that the
Government has considered the claim of the applicant and
the 5th respondent in accordance with law and found that
the 5th respondent who has to take care of his child having
60% disability, deserves compassionate consideration for a
posting at Ernakulam, in his home District. We do not find
any illegality in Annexure A9.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed".
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original
application by the Tribunal, the petitioner is now before this Court
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
with the present original petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is about to retire from service on 31.05.2026.
He is specifically requested for a transfer to Ernakulam, which
ought to have been considered instead of granting a transfer to
the 5th respondent. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal,
as well as Annexure A9 order under challenge in the original
application, are liable to be set aside.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader invited our attention to paragraph 3 of the reply statement
filed by the 1st respondent and submitted that the petitioner had
been working in General Hospital, Ernakulam, for a period of 10
years from 19.09.2010 till 21.01.2021, before his transfer to
Thrissur. As per Annexure A10 order, he is working in the General
Hospital, Ernakulam, for three days a week on a working
arrangement. There is no illegality in Annexure A9 order and so
also in the impugned order of the Tribunal.
9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
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.
10. 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.
11. 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
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
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.
12. 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.
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
13. 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.
14. 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
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
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.
15. It is trite that whether an employee is to be transferred
to a different station, 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 would not interfere in the
orders of transfer of an employee issued by the employer, for
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
administrative reasons, as it would 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.
16. 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)
17. 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
one place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
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)
18. 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)
19. 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 incident of service and the
employee has no legal right in this behalf. Unless the orders of
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
transfer are vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides, Courts
should be loath to interfere with the same.
20. From Annexure A9 order as well as from the impugned
order of the Tribunal, we notice that the respondents gave
preference to the 5th respondent, considering the compassionate
ground of the disability of the child of the 5 th respondent. The
petitioner has no case that the transfer order impugned by the
petitioner was vitiated by malafides. A pleading to that effect is
conspicuously absent in the original application. In such
circumstances, viewed in the light of the judgments referred to
supra, we find no reason to hold that the impugned order of the
Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which warrants the interference of
this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 500 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GUIDELINES FOR GENERAL TRANSFER OF THE HEALTH
DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR 2024 DATED
15.03.2024.
Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT LIST ORDER NO.E.B.4-
9510/2024/DHS DATED 07.06.2024 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2.
Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED NIL.
Annexure-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
08.06.2024.
Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
20.07.2024.
Annexure-A6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.2350/2024/H&FWD
DATED 04.10.2024 OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT
Annexure-A7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 07.10.2024
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2024 IN
OA(EKM)NO.1316/2024.
Annexure-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.31/2025/H&FWD DATED
06.01.2025 OF THE HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE(A) DEPARTMENT
Annexure-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.803/2022/H&FWD
DATED 08.02.2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure-R5(a) A TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED
FROM DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE ERNAKULAM
BEARING CERTIFICATE NO.KL0860320120216645
DATED 28.11.2019.
Annexure-R5(b) A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF DISABILITY IN
FORM-VII DATED 28.11.2019 BEARING
CERTIFICATE NO.C2- MB/2728/2019.
Annexure-R5(c) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.3/2017/P&ARD DATED
25.02.2017.
Annexure-R5(d) A TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM BEARING
NO.F.NO.42011/3/2014-ESTT(RES) DATED
08.10.2018.
Annexure-R5(e) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.22/2022/P&ARD DATED
26.09.2022.
Annexure -R5(f) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS)NO.24/2022/P&ARD DATED
07.11.2022.
Annexure-R5(g) A TRUE COPY OF G.O(P)NO.35/2024/H&FWD DATED
OP(KAT)No.500 of 2025 2026:KER:19
02.04.2024.
Annexure-R1(a) TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO.C2-
MB/2728/2019 OF HIS SON ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL
BOARD, ERNAKULAM GENERAL HOSPITAL
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED K.A.T,
IN O.A.(EKM) NO.180/2025 DATED 21.07.2025
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO.180/2025
DATED 22.01.2025 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES
FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED K.A.T., ADDITIONAL
BENCH AT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2025 ALONG
WITH ITS ANNEXURES
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27.06.2025 ALONG
WITH ANNEXURE
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT)
NO.1819/2025/H&FWD DATED 02.07.2025 ISSUED
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
