SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Dr. Geetha R, D/o Gangadharan – Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala – Respondent 
OP(KAT) No.372 of 2025
Decided on : 11-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
For the Respondent: SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to converting a tribunal's decision into an appeal; it can only intervene in cases of grave dereliction of duty or fundamental justice violations.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Transfer order issued following a complaint - The applicant sought to retain her position at the current station. The Tribunal found no fault with the transfer order, leading to the dismissal of the original petition - The Court clarified that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot convert an appeal. (Paras 9, 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Surgeon, filed an application against her transfer order, alleging retaliation following a complaint against an office staff member. The Tribunal dismissed her application affirming the legality of the transfer order.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order of disposal was upheld, stating the transfer order was within the respondent's authority and was not in violation of any legal principles.

Issues: Key issues included the applicability of the transfer order in light of possible retaliation and the scope of the court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that it cannot interfere in tribunal matters unless there is a grave dereliction of duty or violations of natural justice, reinforcing supervisory rather than appellate jurisdiction.

Result: Original petition dismissed as withdrawn, preserving the petitioner’s rights to further challenge the Director’s order.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's request for retaining position. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 6)
2. court proceedings and petitioner’s appeal. (Para 3 , 5)
3. supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. petition dismissed but with a right to challenge. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner filed O.A.No.1446 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services; an order directing the respondents to retain her in the present station, i.e., Family Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram; or in the alternative to direct the respondents to accommodate her in the open vacancy at Integrated Health Centre, Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram. The said original application filed by the petitioner-applicant, who is working as Assistant Surgeon at Primary Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram, was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal. Paragraphs 2, 3 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;

“2. Annexure A1 transfer order would show that the said order is issued in the light of a complaint followed by the preliminary inquiry. The applicant's contention is that she had submitted a complaint against one of the office staff to the 3rd respondent as well as before the state SC/ST Commission. The said transfer order, the applicant contends, is a counter to the said complaint. Aggrieved by the transfer, the applicant has submitted Annexure A5 appeal before, the 1st respondent.

3. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the applicant can be considered against any of the vacancies available at the Family Health Center, Madavoor, Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Varkala or at the Taluk Hospital, Attingal.

The submission made by the learned Government Pleader is recorded and the Original Application is disposed.”

2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1446 of 2025, the petitioner-applicant has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P1 order of transfer dated 11.08.2025 and Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1446 of 2025; to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner-applicant in Primary Health Centre, Kadakampally, by cancelling Ext.P1 transfer order, and permit her to continue in the present station till her retirement; and an order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation dated 23.08.2025, after hearing the petitioner-applicant and also to take a decision on Exts.P4 to P6 complaints.

3. On 03.09.2025, when this original petition came up for admission before the Vacation Bench, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents. While ordering the original petition to be listed on 08.09.2025, the Division Bench ordered that until such time, status quo available as on 03.09.2025 at 10.45 a.m., with respect to the position of the petitioner-applicant, shall be maintained. Thereafter, when this original petition came up for consideration on the re-opening day, it was adjourned to 10.09.2025 and thereafter to this date (11.09.2025), at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant.

4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to implead the complainant referred to in Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 of the Director of Health Services, as additional 4th respondent in this original petition.

5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

6. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader would point

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top