Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2540 (KER)

Madhu S. v. State of Kerala

2025-09-23

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, have filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P2 interim order dated 15.07.2025 of the Tribunal in that original application, which was one filed by the petitioners-applicants, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking an order to set aside Annexure A12 order dated 08.04.2025 issued by the 1 st respondent State to the extent of declining the request to hold direct recruitment till the completion of promotion from the feeder category to the post of Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions, as found in Annexure A3 judgment dated 19.03.2018 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.296 of 2014; a declaration that the decision of the 4 th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission to commence selection for the category Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions, notified in Annexure A7 notification with Category No.571/2023, is bad, unreasonable, illegal and liable to be set aside; and a direction to the 1 st respondent State and the 3 rd respondent Principal Director, Local Self Government Department, to give effect and complete the process of promotion to the post of Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions, in terms of the seniority in Annexure A8 order dated 20.01.2023 and Annexure A9 order dated 09.03.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent. 2. On 15.07.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025 came up for admission, the Tribunal admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 4 th respondent. 2. On 15.07.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025 came up for admission, the Tribunal admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 4 th respondent. The interim order granted by the Tribunal on 15.07.2025 reads thus; "Selection and appointment, if any, made on the basis of Annexure A7 will be subject to final outcome of the Original Application." Challenging Ext.P2 interim order dated 15.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025, the petitioners-applicants are before this Court in this original petition, by contending that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have granted stay of finalisation of ranked list by the 4 th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission in terms of Annexure A7 notification in Category No.571/2023 for the post of Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions, and all further proceedings thereto, as sought for in that original application. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- applicants, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 4 th respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants would contend that in view of the specific findings contained in Annexure A3 judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.296 of 2014, the Tribunal ought to have granted the interim prayer, as sought for in O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025. Per contra, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission would contend that no interference is warranted in Ext.P2 interim order dated 15.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025 in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners- applicants and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 have addressed arguments touching the merits of the matter now pending before the Tribunal in O.A. (EKM)No.1085 of 2025, we do not propose to consider those arguments in this original petition, since those arguments have to be considered by the Tribunal at the first instance. By Ext.P2 order dated 15.07.2025, instead of granting an interim stay as sought for in that original application, the Tribunal ordered that selection and appointment, if any, made on the basis of Annexure A7 will be subject to the final outcome of the original application. 6. A copy of the ranked list published by the 4 th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission is placed on record as Ext.P3. The said ranked list came into force with effect from 31.07.2025, for the post of Secretary, Local Self Government Institutions. In Note (1) to Ext.P3 ranked list it is made clear that the selection process will be subject to the result of O.A. (EKM)No.1085 of 2025 pending before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 13. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P2 interim order dated 15.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1085 of 2025, in exercise of the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 14. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. In case, the reply statement on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and that on behalf of the 4 th respondent is not yet filed, the same shall be placed on record before the Tribunal within a period of three weeks from the date of this order or within the extended period, if any, granted by the Tribunal.