Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 307 (KER)

Brijithson B. K. S/o Belingson v. State of Kerala

2026-03-26

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. The 2 nd applicant in O.A.No.809 of 2020 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P1 order dated 16.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. Going by the averments in the original application, the1 st applicant is ranked No.19, and the 2 nd applicant is ranked No.43 in the reservation category of SIUC Nadar candidate in Annexure A1 ranked list for the post of Live Stock Inspector Gr.II in Alappuzha district. This ranked list has validity till 18.06.2020. Twenty candidates are advised from the ranked list till date. The cadre strength of Live Stock Inspectors in Alleppey district is 157, out of which Live Stock Inspector Gr.II is 79. But the effective strength as per RTI reply is only sixty two. So seventeen vacancies are available for reporting to the 4 th respondent by the 5 th respondent. It is reliably understood that two Live Stock Inspectors got inter-district transfer to Alappuzha district. These two vacancies are actually to be filled from the existing Annexure A1 ranked list. It is understood that 8 Live Stock Inspectors will be eligible for promotion against the eight vacancies of Live Stock Inspectors existing in Alappuzha. So these eight vacancies are to be reported to the 4 th respondent and to be filled up from Annexure A1 ranked list. Earlier, the 3 rd respondent promoted 130 Live Stock Inspectors Gr.II as Live Stock Inspectors Gr.I and issued orders and permitted to retain in their earlier offices even after promotion. As a result of the above direction, thirty-three vacancies are available for the Live Stock Inspectors Gr.II category in Alappuzha District. It is to be advised from Annexure A1 ranked list. But these vacancies are not reported to the Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short), despite repeated requests and reminders. If these vacancies were not reported to the 4 th respondent before the expiry of the Annexure A1 ranked list, the applicants will be put to irreparable loss and agony. The non-reporting of vacancies to the PSC is a violation of the fundamental rights of the applicants enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . If these vacancies were not reported to the 4 th respondent before the expiry of the Annexure A1 ranked list, the applicants will be put to irreparable loss and agony. The non-reporting of vacancies to the PSC is a violation of the fundamental rights of the applicants enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India . With these pleadings, the petitioner and the co-applicant filed O.A. No.809 of 2020 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs: “1. Call for the records to assess the availability of vacancies for the post of Live Stock Inspector Gr.II/ Poultry Assistant/ Milk Recorder/ Store Keeper/enumerator in the Animal Husbandry Department in Alleppey district liable to be advised from Annexure A1 ranked list and non reporting of the existing vacancies to the 4 th respondent. 2. To declare that the applicants are eligible for advice and appointment from Annexure A1 ranked list. 3. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 3 rd respondent and 5 th respondent to report all existing and arising vacancies during the pendency of Annexure A1 ranked list before the expiry of the ranked list. 4. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 1 st and 3 rd respondents to issue directions to the 5 th respondent for reporting all existing and arising vacancies during the pendency of Annexure-A1 ranked list to the 4 th respondent. 5. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 4 th respondent to issue advice memo to the eligible candidates from the Annexure-A1 ranked list on receipt of the reporting of vacancies during the pendency of Annexure 1 ranked list. 6. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the to the 1 st and 3 rd respondents to issue promotion orders to the eligible Live Stock Inspectors to higher posts and to report all the resultant vacancies of Live Stock Inspectors Grade II available and arising during the pendency of Annexure 1 ranked list to Kerala Public Service Commission without resorting to other methods of appointment. 7. 7. Order or direction may be issued to the 1 st and 3 rd respondents to report all the vacancies available consequent on the leave granted to officers for more than 6 (six) months and consequent on the relief of Live Stock Inspectors to the 4 th respondent before the expiry of Annexure —A1 ranked list.” 3. The 5 th respondent in the original application filed a reply statement dated 06.02.2023, the 1 st respondent in the original application filed a reply statement dated 21.03.2023, and the respondents 2 and 4 in the original application filed a reply statement dated nil, opposing the reliefs sought for. Thereafter, by the impugned Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal dismissed the original application along with two other similar original applications. Being aggrieved, the 2 nd applicant in the original application is now before this Court with this original petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – 2 nd applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were 17 vacancies of Livestock Inspectors Gr.II in the district cadre of Alappuzha. The 1 st respondent failed to report the vacancies to the PSC. At the time of admitting the original application, the Tribunal rightly issued an interim order directing the reporting of 33 vacancies to the PSC. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the actual strength of the Livestock Inspector Gr.II in Alappuzha district is 79, and the full strength of the Livestock Inspector Gr.II is available. Therefore, there was no vacancy during the currency of the ranked list to appoint the applicants in the original applications filed before the Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is needed on the impugned order of the Tribunal. Constitution of India deals with the 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. Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd . Constitution of India deals with the 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. Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd . (2001) 8 SCC 97 , the Apex Court held thus; "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to." 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. 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. 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. 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. Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or 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 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 or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 14. We have carefully gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal and the materials placed on record. From the impugned order, we notice that the Tribunal had considered the availability of the vacancies of Livestock Inspector Gr.II claimed by the applicants in the original application in another matter, that is, in O.A.No.1164 of 2020 and found that the vacancies are not available for reporting to the PSC. The said order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.277 of 2024. As far as the claim of availability of substantive vacancies is concerned, the Tribunal found that those 33 promotion vacancies claimed by the applicants had not actually arisen, as is evident from Annexures A9 and A10 orders dated 04.06.2020 and 09.03.2020, respectively, issued by the Director of Animal Husbandry, the relevant portions of which are extracted in the impugned order. The petitioner - 2 nd applicant has failed to produce any material to hold the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal as illegal or perverse. The petitioner - 2 nd applicant has failed to produce any material to hold the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal as illegal or perverse. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal. In the result, the original petition stand dismissed.