Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2281 (KER)

Hari Shankar R. S/o Raju H. v. State of Kerala

2025-08-25

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner-applicant, who is working as Assistant Surgeon in the Kerala Health Services Department, had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1250 of 2023, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking stay of operation of Annexure A5 order dated 05.07.2023 issued by the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services, as far as promotion and transfer of the applicant is concerned, to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Alathur, Palakkad, Junior Consultant; and to direct the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services to consider the relinquishment submitted by the applicant within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal and to retain the applicant in the present station. 2. In the original application, the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Servies filed Ext.P2 reply statement dated 19.09.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the original application, by Ext.P5 order dated 04.06.2025. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that order read thus: “3. The 2 nd respondent filed reply statement. It is stated that the applicant acquired PG Degree in May, 2018 and had given option for placement as Junior Consultant in Anaesthesia during the year 2019 and he was included in the seniority list of Medical Officers who had acquired PG Diploma up to 31.12.2018. As per Rule 6 of Annexure R2(a) Special Rules for Kerala Health Service (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010, an option once exercised shall be final. It is stated that Dr.Nisha was given placement as Junior Consultant Ophthalmology while she was on LWA for study purpose. She was diagnosed with melanoma on her right foot and later detected multiple metastasis. Considering her health condition, Government had permitted her to discontinue the course and rejoin the Health Services Department. She was thereafter given posting as Assistant Surgeon on humanitarian ground as per Annexure A4 order issued on 11.05.2023. She expired on 15.07.2023. 4. The applicant had attended the counseling conducted on 04.07.2023 for placement as Junior Consultant and he had selected Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Aalathur, based on his option in Annexure R2(b) list. 5. The issue relating to the relinquishment of placement as Junior Consultant is now settled against the applicant in view of the judgment dated 19.03.2025 in O.P.(KAT)No.420 of 2024. The applicant had attended the counseling conducted on 04.07.2023 for placement as Junior Consultant and he had selected Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Aalathur, based on his option in Annexure R2(b) list. 5. The issue relating to the relinquishment of placement as Junior Consultant is now settled against the applicant in view of the judgment dated 19.03.2025 in O.P.(KAT)No.420 of 2024. Once the applicant exercised his option, it is final and cannot be relinquished as provided in Rule 6 of the Special Rules.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P5 order dated 04.06.2025 of the Tribunal, the petitioner-applicant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The reliefs sought for in this original petition are as follows; “(i) Set aside Ext.P5 order dated 04.06.2025 in O.A.No.1250 of 2023 and allow Ext.P1 O.A. (ii) Declare Rule 5 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010 as bad in law.” 6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 8. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 8. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (2010) 9 SCC 385 , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 9. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, (2015) 12 SCC 39 the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 10. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair, 2016 (1) KHC 1 a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 11. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the correctional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the applicant before the Tribunal cannot expand the scope of the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act . Therefore, in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner-applicant cannot raise a challenge against Rule 5 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010. In that view of the matter, the declaratory relief sought for in this original petition falls beyond the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 12. The learned counsel for petitioner-applicant would submit that Ext.P4 judgment dated 19.03.2025 of this Court in O.P.(KAT)Nos.420 of 2024 and 422 of 2024, referred to in paragraph 5 of Ext.P5 order dated 04.06.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1250 of 2023, was one rendered in the context of Rule 6 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010. The said original petition arises out of the order dated 25.06.2024 in O.A.Nos.300 of 2024 and 329 of 2024 of the Tribunal. In the said original applications, the applicants therein have not raised a challenge against Rule 5 of the said Rules, which deals with option for placement and the Tribunal considered the claim of the applicants with reference to Rule 6, which provides that option one exercised shall be final. 13. In the said original applications, the applicants therein have not raised a challenge against Rule 5 of the said Rules, which deals with option for placement and the Tribunal considered the claim of the applicants with reference to Rule 6, which provides that option one exercised shall be final. 13. In view of the finding rendered by this Court, as stated hereinbefore, that in an original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, challenging the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner cannot widen the scope of the original application filed before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant seeks liberty to withdraw O.A.No.1250 of 2023 filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, without prejudice to the right of the applicant to file a fresh original application before the Tribunal raising a challenge against Rule 5 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010. 14. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, the applicant is permitted to withdraw O.A.No.1250 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the applicant. Consequently, O.A.No.1250 of 2023 will stand dismissed as withdrawn and this original petition is also dismissed, subject to the aforesaid right of the petitioner-applicant.