Kerala High Court
Dr.Hari Shankar.R vs State Of Kerala on 25 August, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:64840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 3RD BHADRA, 1947
O.P.(KAT)NO.345 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2025 IN O.A.NO.1250 OF 2023 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
DR.HARI SHANKAR.R.
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O RAJU.H., ASSISTANT SURGEON, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE,
PURAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA-688561, RESIDING AT VANCHIPURACKAL
MADOM, AMBALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN
KUM.VYKHARI.K.U
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, VANCHIYOOR P.O., GH
JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:64840
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:64840
5 of that order read thus;
"3. The 2nd 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. 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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:64840
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,
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:64840
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. 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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:64840
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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:64840
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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:64840
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 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
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:64840
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.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MIN
OP(KAT)No.345 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:64840
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 345/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EA2-2422/2023/DHS
DATED 31/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
SERVICE
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 6726/2023/DHS DATED
30/6/2023 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH
SERVICE
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4-6-
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EA1/6726/2023/DHS
DATED 11.5.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EA1-6726/2023/DHS
DATED 5/7/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION G.O.(P) NO.
69/10/H&FWD DATED 17/2/2010 PUBLISHED IN SR NO.
Annexure R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OPTED STATIONS OF
MEDICAL OFFICERS WHO WERE ATTENDED COUNSELLING
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
26/10/2023
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 1250 OF 2023 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 19-9-2023
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF MA NO. 2022 OF 2023 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP (KAT) NO. 420
OF 2024 DATED 19/3/2025 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/6/2025 IN OA NO.
1250 OF 2023 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EB-2/18813/2025/HSD
DATED 31-7-2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ES7-692/2019/DHS DATED
19-3-2019
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. ES7-581/2021/DHS DATED 2-
6-2021
