On Monday, the Kerala High Court ordered Ernakulam’s bench to the central administrative tribunal (CAT) to consider the maintenance of the petition filed by the leading officer Ias B. Ashok, who attacked him by the state government that transferred him from the office of the main secretary, agriculture and commissioner for agricultural production.
The divisional bench of justice Nithin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji said that the cat must first decide on the question of the governor, who in this case is organized as a respondent.
The Court issued a directive in hearing the application submitted by the Government, which questioned the temporary orders of the cat, which at the beginning of this month accepted, which besides the transfer of Mr. Ashok.
The government transferred it from its positions and was appointed by the CMD of Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation (KTDFC) and later as chairman of the local government commission for reforms. The cat remained these government orders.
The state government, which questioned the stay, claimed before the High Court that the transfer and contributions were part of the service and that IAS officers had no lien on any post. The government also said that Mr. Ashok’s requests were not legally maintained in front of the cat because he “incorrectly showed” the governor as a respondent in a dispute concerning the transfer.
Mr. Ashok’s advisor said that the state had already raised this claim before the cat and that the governor indicated that he had no objections to being presented in petitions. After hearing both parties, the court believed that the cat must first decide on the maintenability of the petition filed by Mr. Ashok and sent a case for hearing 29 September.
In addition to this matter, the court would also consider the petition a petition filed on the same day, which challenges the interim order of the cat, which ordered the recommendations of the Council for State Services (CSB) on the transfer of IAS officers.
In its action before the cat on Monday, the government filed a preliminary objection and stated that the implementation of the governor as an opponent was constitutionally inadmissible and unsustainable rights.
The Supreme Court has also repeatedly confirmed this and that it cannot be personally responsible in court proceedings. In the present case, the state government was the right party. The arguments before the cat on this matter will continue on Tuesday.
Published – 22 September 2025 20:07
