Kerala High Court
Madhu S vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
OP(KAT)No.377 of 2025 1
2025:KER:70876
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 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 1ST ASWINA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO.377 OF 2025
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2025 IN O.A(EKM)NO.1085 OF
2025 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL
BENCH, ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS IN OA :
1 MADHU S, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O SUDEVAN K WORKING AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
NALLEPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PALAKKAD-678 553 RESIDING AT AMBATTUKOLUMBU,
VANDITHAVALAM P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN - 678534
2 SUNILKUMAR K K, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O KUMARAN K.K. JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT PUTHUR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUTHUR P.O., THRISSUR- 680014
RESIDING AT KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOVIL ROAD,
ARIMBOOR P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680620
3 BABU DINKAR, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O RUHANDS FERNANDEZ ASSSITANT SECRETARY/
REVENUE OFFICER, ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, ALUVA-
683101
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SANTHA COTTAGE,
PUTHENTHOPE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695586
4 THADEUS D, AGED 51 YEARS
S/O DASAN WORKING AS ASSISTANT SECRETARY LSG
DEPARTMENT, MULLANKOLLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
MULLENKOLLY, WAYANAD- 673579 PERMANENT RESIDENCE
AT VADAKKETHOTTAM, PULLUVILA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695526
OP(KAT)No.377 of 2025 2
2025:KER:70876
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.PRADEEP
SHRI.T.T.BIJU
SMT.T.THASMI
SMT.M.J.ANOOPA
SMT.POOJA V.M.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LSG DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
LSG DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR
PRINCIPAL DIRECTORATE LSG DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 695004
BY ADV
SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, SR GP
SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.377 of 2025 3
2025:KER:70876
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 1st 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 4th 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 1st respondent State
2025:KER:70876
and the 3rd 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 3rd 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 4th 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 4th
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
2025:KER:70876
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 4th 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
2025:KER:70876
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
2025:KER:70876
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 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
2025:KER:70876
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
2025:KER:70876
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 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
2025:KER:70876
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 4th 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.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:70876
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 377/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF GO (MS) 206/2011/LSGD DATED
5-9-2011
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.
(M.S).NO.210/2014/LSGD DATED 26-11-2014
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-03-
2018 IN O.P.KAT NO.296 OF 2014
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(M.S)
NO.106/2020/LSGD DATED 17-07-2020 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE
ORDER G.O.(M.S) NO.106/2020/LSGD DATED
17-07-2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.74/2022/LSGD
DATED 27-10-2022
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO PR (1)
06/2023/GS/44 DATED 04-12-2023 ISSUED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN
CATEGORY NO 571/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
PAN/5886/2020-E7(DP) DATED 20-01-2023
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO
LSGD/PD/29303/2024-GEA2 DATED 09-03-2025
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST NO
LSGD/PD/38775/2024-DEH1 DATED 16-06-2025
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-01-2024
IN OA (EKM) NO 2083 OF 2023
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GO (RT.) NO
932/2025/LSGD DATED 08-04-2025 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2025:KER:70876
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
(EKM) NO 1085 OF 2025 PENDING BEFORE THE
LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-07-2025
IN OA (EKM) NO 1085 OF 2025 OF THE
LEARNED KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE M.A. (EKM) NO.1336 OF
2025 IN O.A(EKM) NO.1085 OF 2025 ON THE
FILES OF HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
