Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45410
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT – Appellant
Versus
KERALA GOVERNMENT VETERINARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (REG .NO 305/2013) TC 25/132 DHARMALAYAM ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY DR.KURIAKOSE MATHEW.T – Respondent
O.P.(KAT) NO. 316 OF 2024 | OA (EKM) NO.984 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT VINITHA B.
For the Respondents: ADVS. NANDAKUMAR P, VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR, T.G.SEETHAL, MERIN K JIMMY, K.S.BHARATHAN
Only individuals directly affected by administrative orders have the standing to challenge such orders under Section 19 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Petitioners challenged transfer orders issued to Veterinary Officers, seeking declaration of legality regarding orders of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. Respondents contended that they had no locus standi to file as they were not aggrieved parties. The Tribunal issued interim orders against implementation of impugned transfers. Court concluded that the original application was not maintainable as the petitioners did not possess aggrieved status. The decision reiterates the principle that only a person directly affected by an administrative order possesses standing to challenge it. (Paras 1, 6, 24, 32)
Findings of Court:
O.A.(EKM) No.984 of 2024 is not maintainable as neither respondent qualifies as an aggrieved person under Section 19 of the Act.
Result: Original petition allowed, interim orders set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the original application and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge to transfer orders based on procedural violations. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's jurisdiction over interim orders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. competence and authority of the under secretary in legal proceedings. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. legality of representation and signing of petitions. (Para 8) |
| 6. procedural requirements for signing government petitions. (Para 9) |
| 7. specification of verification processes in legal documents. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 8. mode of authorization in legal procedures. (Para 12) |
| 9. flexibility in procedural enforcement by courts. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 10. rights of individuals versus procedural authority in transfer matters. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 11. legal standing for raising objections on maintainability in court. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 12. court's reluctance to interfere in transfer orders under administrative discretion. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 13. the definition of 'person aggrieved' in matters of transfer. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 14. criteria for approaching the tribunal regarding transfer orders. (Para 24 , 25) |
| 15. limitations of associations in filing applications against transfer orders. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 16. clarification on association rights concerning individual grievances. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 17. implications of being 'person aggrieved' in transfer cases. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 18. conclusion regarding the maintainability of the original application. (Para 32) |
JUDGMENT
P .G.Ajithkumar, J.
Respondents No.1 and 2 in OA(EKM) No.984 of 2024 pending before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench), Ernakulam are the petitioners. They seek to set aside Exts.P2 and P6 and to declare Annexure A12 order legal and valid. Exts.P2 and P6 are two interim orders issued by the Tribunal.
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed O.A.(EKM) No.984 of 2024. In that original application filed under Section 19 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) they sought, inter alia, to quash Annexure A12 order to the extent it relates to respondents No.3 to 44. It is seen that respondents No.45 to 47 got themselves impleaded. Annexure A12 is an order issued by the 1st petitioner ordering transfer of Senior Veterinary Surgeon and Assistant Director in the Animal Husbandry Department. List No.1 in Annexure A12 is concerning promotion of Veterinary Surgeons. List No.2 is concerning transfer of Senior Veterinary Surgeon/Assistant Director on administrative ground. List No.3 in it relates to transfer of Veterinary Surgeons, Senior Veterinary Surgeons and Assistant Directors.
3. Respondent No.1 claims it is the only registered association of Kerala Government Veterinary Officers working under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry. The 2nd respondent is a Senior Veterinary Surgeon, who aspires to get a transfer in the next general transfer. The respondents challenge Annexure A12 order on many grounds; the essential grounds are the following:
i) Annexure A1 is the guidelines issued by the Government in regard to the general transfer of Government employees in various departments. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal by various orders directed the Animal Husbandry Department to implement Annexure A1. As per Annexure A6 the Kerala Administrative Tribunal specifically directed the 2nd petitioner to initiate proceedings for the general transfer, 2023 in tune with the guidelines contained in Annexure A1. The Tribunal subsequently as per Annexure A8 dated 22.11.2023 directed the 2nd petitioner to complete the process of online transfer within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. That order was issued in modification of Annexure A6 order dated 10.03.2023. Inspite of the said direction, the petitioners did not effect general transfers in terms of Annexure A1; instead effected transfers as per Annexure A12;
ii) The Kerala Administrative Tribunal, in fact, has directed to effect interim transfers, if any, only in accordance with the queue list. But the petitioners in total disregard of the s
