The court affirms the entitlement of a re-induction to office based on prior rulings and mandates prompt government action on pending representations.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner, a former Judge of this Court as well as the former Chairman of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeks for a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and act on Ext.P4 representation for the purpose of re-inducting him to the post of Chairman of KAT, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2021) 7 SCC 369 ] and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2022) 12 SCC 455 ] as well as through the judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [2025 KHC On Line 6950].

2. The petitioner assumed charge as the Chairman of Kerala Administrative Tribunal on 06.09.2021 and on completion of 4 years period, he demitted office with effect from 05.09.2025. As per paragraph 155 of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [2025 KHC On Line 6950], all appointments of members and the Chairpersons whose selection or recommendation by the Search-cum-Selection Committee was completed before commencement of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, but whose formal appointment notifications were issued after the Act came in to force, shall be protected. Such appointments will continue to be governed by the parent statutes and by the conditions of service as laid down in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2021) 7 SCC 369 ] and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2022) 12 SCC 455 ]

3. The petitioner's recommendation and selection were completed under the parent statute, the Administrative Tribunal Act , 1985. However, his formal appointment order was issued after the coming into force the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2021) 7 SCC 369 ] has directed the Government to amend the relevant rules by making the tenure of Chairman as 5 years or till they attain 70 years of age. The resultant conclusion is that the petitioner can hold the office of the Chairman of Kerala Administrative Tribunal for a period of 5 years from the date on which he entered office, which is 06.09.2021. Thus, the petitioner can continue till 05.09.2026. However, the petitioner demitted office with effect from 05.09.2025. By virtue of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.11.2025, the petitioner is entitled to be re-inducted as the Chairman of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal forthwith. The office of the Chairman is lying vacant. Even though selection proceedings have been commenced under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 it could not be proceeded in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 19.11.2025.

5. Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent is pending consideration. Only an administrative order needs to be issued by the 1^st respondent on the basis of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, contends the petitioner. The writ petition is filed seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Chairman of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal for a period of five years from his date of assumption of charge, which was on 06.09.2021 and is entitled to enjoy all the service conditions and benefits as provided under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and the Rules made thereunder and as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2021) 7 SCC 369 ] and Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and another [ (2022) 12 SCC 455 ], as well as through the judgment in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India [2025 KHC On Line 6950] and to direct the 1^st