The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting manifest errors or perverse orders and cannot be invoked as an appellate forum to interfere with administrative transfer orders absent clear evidence of mala fides or statutory violations.

JUDGMENT ;

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.264 of 2026, on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Ernakulam (‘the Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 31.03.2026 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.(EKM)No.389 of 2026 in that original application, whereby Ext.P2 interim order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal preventing relieving of the petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4 from their respective stations was vacated.

2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.(EKM)No.264 of 2026 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Call for the records leading to Annexure A2 transfer order dated 19.02.2026.

2. Set aside Annexure A2 to the extent it transfers the Applicant from ADCP, Thrissur to Veterinary Dispensary, Anthikad

3. Declare that the Applicant is entitled to continue at ADCP, Thrissur.”

3. As per the pleadings in the original petition, the petitioner is a Veterinary Surgeon Grade-I presently working at the Animal Disease Control Project (ADCP), Thrissur. She had been on deputation to the State Museum and Zoo Department from September 2021 till 31.01.2026. Upon cancellation of her deputation by the order dated 22.01.2026, she was reposted to ADCP, Thrissur and she joined duty on 02.02.2026. However, within a short span of 15 days, the petitioner was transferred to Veterinary Dispensary, Anthikad, Thrissur by an order dated 19.02.2026, which was challenged by her before the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM) No. 264 of 2026. The Tribunal, by Ext.P2 interim order dated 20.02.2026, permitted the petitioner to continue at her present station at ADCP, Thrissur. The said interim protection continued in force. Subsequently, the 3^rd respondent filed M.A. (EKM) No. 389 of 2026 seeking to vacate the interim order. The case of the 3^rd respondent was limited to seeking a posting at Veterinary Dispensary, Korkancherry, pursuant to earlier proceedings and Government Orders. It is pertinent to note that the 3^rd respondent never claimed a posting at ADCP, Thrissur, nor sought the displacement of the petitioner from her post. The petitioner, in fact, was not a party to the earlier proceedings relied upon by the 3^rd respondent. Despite this, the Tribunal, by Ext.P5 order dated 31.03.2026, vacated the interim protection granted to the petitioner, on the premise that her posting at ADCP, Thrissur, was subject to compliance with earlier Tribunal directions in unrelated proceedings. The petitioner submits that the impugned order is vitiated by arbitrariness, violation of principles of natural justice, procedural impropriety, and jurisdictional error. The order also results in selective prejudice to the petitioner while favouring the 3^rd respondent, without any legal basis. No reply statement is filed by the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said Ext.P5 order dated 31.03.2026 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought in the original petition, issuance of notice to respondents 3 and 4 is dispensed with.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal ought not have passed the impugned order without obtaining