Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2418 (KER)

Geetha R, D/o Gangadharan v. State Of Kerala

2025-09-11

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1446 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services; an order directing the respondents to retain her in the present station, i.e., Family Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram; or in the alternative to direct the respondents to accommodate her in the open vacancy at Integrated Health Centre, Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram. The said original application filed by the petitioner-applicant, who is working as Assistant Surgeon at Primary Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram, was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal. Paragraphs 2, 3 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus; “2. Annexure A1 transfer order would show that the said order is issued in the light of a complaint followed by the preliminary inquiry. The applicant's contention is that she had submitted a complaint against one of the office staff to the 3 rd respondent as well as before the state SC/ST Commission. The said transfer order, the applicant contends, is a counter to the said complaint. Aggrieved by the transfer, the applicant has submitted Annexure A5 appeal before, the 1 st respondent. 3. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that the applicant can be considered against any of the vacancies available at the Family Health Center, Madavoor, Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Varkala or at the Taluk Hospital, Attingal. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader is recorded and the Original Application is disposed.” 2. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1446 of 2025, the petitioner-applicant has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P1 order of transfer dated 11.08.2025 and Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1446 of 2025; to direct the respondents to retain the petitioner-applicant in Primary Health Centre, Kadakampally, by cancelling Ext.P1 transfer order, and permit her to continue in the present station till her retirement; and an order directing the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 representation dated 23.08.2025, after hearing the petitioner-applicant and also to take a decision on Exts.P4 to P6 complaints. 3. 3. On 03.09.2025, when this original petition came up for admission before the Vacation Bench, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions from the respondents. While ordering the original petition to be listed on 08.09.2025, the Division Bench ordered that until such time, status quo available as on 03.09.2025 at 10.45 a.m., with respect to the position of the petitioner-applicant, shall be maintained. Thereafter, when this original petition came up for consideration on the re-opening day, it was adjourned to 10.09.2025 and thereafter to this date (11.09.2025), at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant. 4. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to implead the complainant referred to in Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 of the Director of Health Services, as additional 4 th respondent in this original petition. 5. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior Government Pleader would point out order No.DHS/21505/2025- EA2 dated 29.08.2025 issued by the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services, which is one passed in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1446 of 2025, whereby the petitioner-applicant is posted at Taluk Hospital, Attingal, as Casualty Medical Officer, by cancelling Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025, which was under challenge in O.A.No.1446 of 2025. 7. As already noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner-applicant has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking an order to implead the complainant referred to in Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 of the Director of Health Services, as additional 4 th respondent in this original petition. For reasons best known to the applicant, she has not chosen to array the complainant referred to in Annexure A1 order as a respondent in O.A.No.1446 of 2025. We find absolutely no reason to entertain I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-applicant for impleading the said complainant as an additional respondent in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. 8. By Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal, O.A.No.1446 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-applicant was disposed of after recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. 8. By Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal, O.A.No.1446 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-applicant was disposed of after recording the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. In the said order the Tribunal has noted the fact that Annexure A1 order of transfer was issued in the light of a complaint, followed by a preliminary enquiry. In that order the Tribunal has also noted the complaint made by the applicant against one office staff before the 3 rd respondent and also before the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission. When the applicant has chosen to file O.A.No.1446 of 2025 before the Tribunal without the complainant referred to in Annexure A1 order in the party array, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in disposing that original application by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 14. 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 seek any relief in respect of Ext.P3 representation dated 23.08.2025 made before the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services or an order for consideration of Ext.P4 representation dated 08.10.2024 made before the Assistant Police Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext.P5 complaint dated 12.04.2024 made before the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Commission and Ext.P6 representation dated 09.04.2024 made before the 3 rd respondent District Medical Officer (Health). The said relief sought for in this original petition falls beyond the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the above legal position, the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant seeks permission to withdraw this original petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.08.2025 of the 2 nd respondent Director of Health Services in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. Based on the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this original petition is dismissed as withdrawn; however without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.