[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Shanisabeegom A.S vs State Of Kerala , Reprsented By The ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT) No.454 of 2025
2025:KER:92202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 454 OF 2025
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:
1 DR. SHANISABEEGOM A.S,D/O S.SHARAFUDEEN, AGED 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GARDEN HOUSE, PALLIMUKKU, KADAKKAL P.O.,
KOLLAM-., PIN - 691536
2 DR. NIDHI LEKSHMI. U.S, AGED 30 YEARS
D/O SUGATHAKUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT ' ROHINI',
KUNNATHUR WEST, KUNNATHUR P.O., KOLLAM-, PIN - 690540
BY ADV SHRI.S.BALACHANDRAN (KULASEKHARAM)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA , REPRSENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & SKILL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SRI.APPU K.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
27.11.2025, THE COURT ON 2.12.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT) No.454 of 2025
2025:KER:92202
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants in O.A. No.2006 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the 'Tribunal' in
short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the
Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioners filed O.A. No.2006 of 2024 before the
Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue a direction to the 3rd Respondent to consider the
rank holders' case leniently, and in the interest of justice,
and in consideration of Annexures A7 and A7(a) to effect
extension of Annexure A1 Rank List No.02/2022/ER-XIII for
a minimum period of 6 months with effect from the date of
its expiry, 02.01.2025. Annexures A1, A7 and A7(a) and
pass orders extending the rank list Annexure A1 (Rank List
No.02/2022/ER-XIII) for a minimum period of 6 months
from the expiry date, i.e., on 02.01.2025, in consideration
of prolonged deprivation of chances of appointments of the
applicants as Assistant Insurance Medical Officers in
2025:KER:92202
Insurance Medical Services Department.
(ii) Issue a direction to the 2nd respondent (Director,
Insurance Medical Services Department) and the 1 st
respondent (State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary
to Government, Labour & Skill Department, Government
Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram) to put an end to the
practice of suppressing the vacancy positions in the
department and non-reporting of it to the PSC henceforth.
Also, issue a direction to cancel all the appointments made
in the department arbitrarily and post in place, candidates
from Annexure A 1.
(iii) Such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal
may deem fit and proper, in the interests of justice,
particularly of the principles of natural justice and taking
into account the particular circumstances of the case, and
in view of the arbitrary appointments made in violation of
norms, rules and established principles".
3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the
Petitioners are ranked 198th and 225th in the ranked list
No.02/2022/ER-XIII published by the Public Service Commission
('PSC' for short), for the post of Assistant Insurance Medical
Officers, in the Department of Insurance Medical Services. Though
the rank list came into effect from 03.01.2022, vacancies were
filled through Employment Exchanges and walk-in interviews,
2025:KER:92202
arbitrarily, overlooking the rank list. The petitioners had been
waiting for appointment from the rank list since the time the rank
list was published. The respondents have failed to ensure
appointments in accordance with the PSC rank list. Even though
the petitioners could have secured appointment within 6-8 months
of publishing the rank list, even after waiting for 3 years, they
were not considered for appointment. The petitioners, therefore,
filed the original application.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated
01.01.2025 dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 2 to 4
and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"2. Learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC points out that,
all the vacancies reported have been advised. It is also
submitted that, no specific reason which is enumerated in
Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of KPSC has been made
out, which will necessitate a decision, whether the validity
of the ranked list has to be extended or not. No such request
has also been received from the Government so far.
3.Learned Government Pleader submits that all the
vacancies available have been reported to the KPSC.
2025:KER:92202
4. Annexure A1 ranked list is due to expire on 02.01.2025.
Other than vague statements that large number of
vacancies remain unfilled, the applicants have not been able
to produce any evidence in support of their contention that
such vacancies exist. In the absence of any such proof, this
Tribunal is not in a position to issue any directions on a
ranked list, which is valid only till 02.01.2025.
Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed".
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original
application, the petitioners are now before this Court with this
original petition. Though the original petition was filed on
31.07.2025, it was returned due to some defects. Later, the
petitioners re-presented the original petition with C.M. Appl No.1
of 2025 to condone the delay of 72 days in re-presenting the
same. By the order dated 13.11.2025, we allowed that C.M.
Application and the Registry was directed to number the original
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service
Commission and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
2025:KER:92202
that while dismissing the original application, the Tribunal did not
consider the contentions of the petitioners in their proper
perspective. The order passed by the Tribunal is a cryptic one,
passed without properly analysing the materials on record.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
the PSC pointed out that the impugned order was passed on
01.01.2025, and the ranked list expired on 02.01.2025. The
present original petition was filed only on 31.07.2025, much after
the dismissal of the original application. By relying on the
judgment of the Apex Court in K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala
State Public Service Commission [2007 (2) KHC 943], the
learned Standing Counsel submitted that the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted by revalidating the expired ranked
list.
9. Article 227 of the 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.
2025:KER:92202
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
2025:KER:92202
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
2025:KER:92202
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 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 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
2025:KER:92202
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.
15. In K. Thulaseedharan [2007 (2) KHC 943], the Apex
Court held thus:
"10. The 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules relied upon
clearly gives an indication that the power available
thereunder could be exercised only in the case of a ranked
list which is still subsisting or the life of which is still
continuing. The words 'the Commission shall have the power
to keep alive the Ranked Lists which are normally due to
expire during the said period' (emphasis supplied) clearly
show that it is a question of keeping alive until a future date,
of a live list, the term of which is to expire shortly. The power
under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules cannot be
made use of to revalidate a time expired ranked list. The
two instances pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the
2025:KER:92202
appellants where the Public Service Commission had done
it, could not be justified legally in the light of the 5th proviso
to Rule 13 of the Rules. They must be treated as
aberrations. They cannot form the foundation of any right.
In this situation, we are satisfied that there is no justification
in interfering with the decision of the High Court since by
03.04.2004, when the notification extending the validity of
the lists was issued, the validity of the list in question had
expired and the same could not be revived in alleged
exercise of power under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the
Rules. (Emphasis supplied)
16. We have carefully perused the materials on record and
the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioners are seeking
relief in respect of Annexure A1 ranked list for the post of
Assistant Insurance Medical Officers in the Insurance Medical
Services, which came into effect from 03.01.2022. The ranked list
expired on 02.01.2025. By noting that the petitioners have not
produced any evidence in support of their contention that several
vacancies are available in the department, the Tribunal dismissed
the original application.
17. Viewed in the light of the judgments referred to supra,
we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or
2025:KER:92202
impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which warrants
interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:92202
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 454 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 COPY OF THE PSC RANK LIST NO.02/2022/ER-X1II,
DATED NIL FOR APPOINTMENT IN RESPECT OF
CATEGORY NO.092/2020: ASSISTANT INSURANCE
MEDICAL OFFICERS,
Annexure A2 COPY OF LETTER NO. EL- 4597/2020/RDD DATED
05.11.2024
Annexure A3 COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED
15/9/2020 REGARDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
OF THE GENERAL RECRUITMENT
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.29.01.2024 MADE
UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005, BY SMT.
PADMACHANDRAN, SREEKOVIL, KAIRALI NAGAR,
NEYYATTINKARA, MOBILE PHONE NO.9495833709,
ADDRESSED TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES,
THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, FOR VACANCY
POSITION AND NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS MADE FROM
THE RANK LIST NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT
OF CATEGORY NO.092/2020. (ASSISTANT
INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER)
Annexure A5 COPY OF THE REPLY TO ANNEXURE A4 RECEIVED
DATED 20/02/2024 NO. B5/303/2024 DIMS FROM
THE DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MEDICAL
SERVICES, THYCAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A6 COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART (REF.NO. RIE
(2) 1440/21/GW DATED 21/06/2022), KPSC RANK
LIST NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF
CATEGORY NO.092/2020: ASSISTANT INSURANCE
MEDICAL OFFICERS) DETAILING PENDING TURNS,
OBTAINED DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(a) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 07/11/2022), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(b) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 10.10.2022), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
2025:KER:92202
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(c) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 20/09/2023), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(d) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 19/10/2023), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(e) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 05/02/2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(f) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 23/04/2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(g) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 29.07.2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(h) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 23/08/2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(i) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
1440/21/GW DATED 08/10/2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 6(j) COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART (REF NO. RIE (2)
2025:KER:92202
1440/21/GW DATED 13/12/2024), KPSC RANK LIST
NO.02/2022/ER-XIII IN RESPECT OF CATEGORY
NO.092/2020: (ASSISTANT INSURANCE MEDICAL
OFFICERS), DETAILING PENDING TURNS, OBTAINED
DOWN-LOADED FROM THE PSC WEBSITE
Annexure 7 COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE 1ST APPLICANT,
DR. SHANISABEEGOM A.S REPRESENTATION BEFORE
THE CHAIRMAN, KPSC, REQUESTING EXTENSION OF
TIME OF THE PSC RANK LIST NO.02/2022/ER-XIII,
MONTHS BEYOND 02.01.2025
Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.A. NO.2006/2024
FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN O.A.2006/2024
