Kerala High Court
Sajesh M vs Additional Chief Secretary on 15 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.185 of 2025
2025:KER:76067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 23RD ASWINA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 185 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2024 IN OA NO.891 OF 2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
SAJESH M,
AGED 42 YEARS
OFFICE ATTENDANT, OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF
FACTORIES,MALAPURAM RESIDING AT MANNOORKARA
HOUSE,PANJIRIYIL, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN - 676123
BY ADVS.
SHRI.S.JAYANT
SMT.ABHIREMYA RAJ R B
SHRI.GOVIND V.P.
SMT.GAYATHRI R.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
LABOUR AND REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT,STATUE,TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR, FACTORIES AND BOILERS DEPARTMENT,
SURAKSHA BHAVAN, KUMARAPURAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695011
3 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES)
2
OP(KAT)No.185 of 2025
2025:KER:76067
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A.J. VARGHESE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
09.10.2025, THE COURT ON 15.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.185 of 2025
2025:KER:76067
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.891 of 2020 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 02.07.2024 passed by the
Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner joined service in the Factories and Boilers Department
('the Department' in short) in Malappuram district as a Class-IV
employee on 08.09.2004. According to the petitioner, he was
serial No.3 in Annexure A6 seniority list dated 23.01.2020, of the
Kozhikode region of the Department. The petitioner contends that
he is eligible to be promoted and posted as L.D Clerk /Typist,
reckoning district-wise seniority. The respondents have prepared
Annexure A1, State-wise seniority list of the employees of the
Department as on 26.03.2019. It is the further case of the
petitioner that by Annexure A6(a) communication dated
03.01.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, it
2025:KER:76067
was made clear that the district-wise promotion and appointment
cannot be possible in the Department in view of the fact that only
three regional offices are functioning under the Department.
Therefore, the promotion is to be based on regional wise in the
Department since it is functioning in three regions, namely,
Kollam, Ernakulam and Kozhikode. The petitioner, being appointed
in the Kozhikode region, his promotion is also to be based on
regional wise. The persons included in serial Nos. 1 and 2 in
Annexure A6 seniority list have relinquished their right for
promotion to the higher post. Evidencing the same, the petitioner
has produced Annexure A7 relinquishment letter submitted before
the Director of Factories and Boilers by the 2 nd person included in
the ranked list. Thus, the petitioner became the senior-most in the
regional wise ranked list and is eligible for by transfer promotion.
The petitioner therefore submitted Annexures A8 to A10
representations dated 16.02.2020, 10.02.2020, and 16.02.2020
respectively, to the Additional Inspector of Factories, Malappuram,
the 2nd respondent and also to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Labour and Rehabilitation, Government Secretariat,
Thiruvananthapuram. Since those representations were not
2025:KER:76067
considered, he approached the Tribunal with the present original
application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A1 State-wise
seniority list dated 26.03.2019 and direct the respondents 1 and
2 to promote him to the post of L.D Clerk/Typist as per Annexure
A6 regional seniority list of Kozhikode region.
3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement
dated 27.09.2022 was filed before the Tribunal stating that the
Department does not have offices in all districts and therefore the
seniority list of the employees of the Department is prepared
State-wise only.
4. To the reply statement filed on behalf of the 2 nd
respondent, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 31.05.2023.
Again, an additional reply statement dated 12.06.2024 was filed
on behalf of the 2nd respondent, pointing out that the Department
has offices only in 11 districts and none of the districts have
sufficient cadre strength to prepare a District-wise seniority list.
5. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the Tribunal dismissed the original application
by the impugned order dated 02.07.2024. Paragraphs 11, 12 and
2025:KER:76067
the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"11. In the light of various Government Orders issued from
time to time regarding by-transfer appointments of low paid
employees to the post of L.D. Clerk / L.D. Typist, it is seen
that the options available to the Departments are, either to
prepare a District-wise seniority list or to prepare a State-
wise seniority list, the latter option being restricted to those
cases where there are insufficient cadre strength in the
Districts. Learned Government Pleader points out that the
region wise seniority list prepared by the Factories and
Boilers Department has not been accepted by the
Government. From the list of vacancies furnished in the
additional reply statement, it is seen that none of the District
offices of the Factories and Boilers Department have
sufficient cadre strength to qualify for the criteria to prepare
District-wise seniority list.
12. In the circumstances, the action on the part of the
Factories and Boilers Department to prepare Annexure A1
State-wise seniority list is sèen as just and proper, and we
do not see any reason to interfere with it.
In view of the above, the Original Application is dismissed
as devoid of merits".
6. In this original petition, the 2nd respondent has filed a
counter affidavit dated 08.09.2025. It is stated in that counter
affidavit that there are 51 clerk/clerk typist posts in the
Department, and the number of senior clerk posts is 50. The
2025:KER:76067
Department cannot consider District-wise seniority in the matter
of promotion, since the Department have no offices in all districts.
Moreover, the total cadre strength, even regional wise is very less.
As the seniority list prepared by the Joint Director of the
Department, who is the Regional Head, has not been approved by
the Department/Government, promotion and by transfer
appointments in the Department are being done on the basis of
the State-wise seniority list. Therefore, promotion can only be
effected as per the State-wise seniority list. It is further stated in
the counter affidavit that the total staff strength in the Department
is 271. As the number of non-gazetted ministerial staff is less
and there are no District-wise offices, the Department prepared
the combined seniority list in State-wise for promotions and by
transfer appointments. The Government or the Department has
not given sanction to the Regional Joint Directors for preparing
regional wise seniority list.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the materials on
record.
2025:KER:76067
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
2025:KER:76067
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.
11. 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
2025:KER:76067
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. 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.
13. 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
2025:KER:76067
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. From the pleadings and materials on record, we notice
that the cadre strength in the case of Factories and Boilers
Department is insufficient for preparation of District-wise seniority
list and hence based on various Government orders issued from
time to time regarding by transfer appointments of low paid
employees to the post of LD Clerk/LD Typist, a State-wise
seniority list was prepared in the Department. The Tribunal
correctly analysed the total number of cadre strength in the
Department and the vacancies available in each region, relying on
the pleadings and documents produced in the original application
2025:KER:76067
and found that the action on the part of the Factories and Boilers
Department to prepare Annexure A1 State-wise seniority list as
just and proper.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no reason to hold that
the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which
warrants the interference of this Court by exercising the
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:76067
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 185/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE SENIORITY LIST PREPARED BASED ON THE
STATEWISE SENIORITY OF THE PERSONNEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS DATED 26-
03-2019
Annexure A2 THE COPY OF GO(P) NO 1/2014/P&ARD DATED 03-
01-2014 RESERVING 10% TOTAL VACANCIES IN THE
POST OF LD CLERK/TYPIST IN GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS FOR CLASS FOUR EMPLOYEES
PROMOTION
Annexure A3 THE COPY OF GO(P) NO 16/15 (P&ARD)DATED 28-
05-2015 NOTIFYING THAT IF THERE IS NO
SUFFICIENT DISTRICT WISE CADRE STRENGTH IS
AVAILABLE THEN PROMOTION TO THE POST OF LD
CLERK/LD TYPIST CAN BE MADE AS PER SENIORITY
LIST
Annexure A4 THE COPY OF GO(RT) NO 280/2017/P&ARD DATED
27-05-2017 CANCELLING THE DISTRICT WISE
SENIORITY LIST AND REINSTATING THE STATE
LEVEL SENIORITY LIST
Annexure A5 THE COPY OF GO(P) NO 4/2020/P&ARD DATED 22-
01-2020 REINSTATING DISTRICT WISE SENIORITY
LIST FOR BY TRANSFER APPOINTMENT OF LOW PAID
EMPLOYEES TO THE POST OF LD CLERK/ LD TYPIST
Annexure A6 COPY OF THE REGIONAL SENIORITY LIST PREPARED
BY KOZHIKODE REGION DATED 23-01-2020 OBTAINED
AS PER RTI ACT
Annexure 6(a) THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SEND TO THE
ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY, LABOUR AND
REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT SECRETARIAT
BY THE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS
DEPARTMENT DATED 03-01-2017
Annexure A7 THE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT LETTER
SUBMITTED BEFORE DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND
BOILERS DEPARTMENT BY THE 2ND RANK HOLDER IN
THE LIST
Annexure A8 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-02-2020
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FORWARDED BY THE
ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT TO DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES
AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A9 THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10-02-2020 GIVEN
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DIRECTOR FACTORIES
2025:KER:76067
AND BOILERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A10 THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-02-2020 GIVEN
BEFORE THE ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY, LABOUR AND
REHABILITATION, GOVT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02ND JULY
2024 IN OA NO 891 OF 2020 OF THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF OA NO 891 OF 2020 ALONG WITH
THE ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BENCH
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-09-2022
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 31-03-2023 TO EXT P3 REPLY
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY
STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
12/06/2024
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM FOR PRODUCTION OF
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 14-06-2024
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY ISSUED BY PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, FACTORIES AND BOILERS
DEPARTMENT AS PER RTI REPLY DATED 02-02-2017
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO 16/2015 P&ARD DATED
28-05-2015
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO 21/2014 P&ARD DATED
19-07-2014
