[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Dr. Rekha P,D/O Narayanan P vs State Of Kerala on 31 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
2026:KER:7583
OP(KAT)No.322 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
SATURDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 322 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.411 OF
2025 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
DR. REKHA P, D/O NARAYANAN P.,
AGED 33 YEARS,THAZHATHU VEEDU, PALAPUZHA KOTTODI P.O.,
RAJAPURAM (VIA), KASARAGOD., PIN - 671532
BY ADV SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
PALACE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, SR.G.P
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON 31.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
2026:KER:7583
OP(KAT)No.322 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A. (EKM)No.411 of 2025 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam
(the 'Tribunal' for short) filed this original petition, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.05.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioner filed O.A. (EKM) No.411 of 2025 before
the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,
1985, seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Call for the records leading to Annexure A5 Appointment
Chart; Set aside the same;
b. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the
authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T
community as per the Annexure to KS&SSR roster to a
reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate
belonging to the E/B/T community is available in the
Annexure A2 ranked list;
c. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the
authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T
community as per the Annexure to KS & SSR roster to a
reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate
2026:KER:7583
belonging to LC/AI community is not available in the
Annexure A2 ranked list;
d. Declare that MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer
(Marma) in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department is
entitled to the E/B/T community on the basis of Rule 15 of
the KS & SSR;
e. Direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicant to
MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer (Marma) in the
Indian Systems of Medicine Department forthwith".
3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the
petitioner is included in the ranked list published by the Kerala
Public Service Commission ('KPSC' for short) to the post of
Medical Officer (Marma). The petitioner belongs to the Thiyya
community. Turn 28 in the reservation roster as per Annexure of
the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules ('KS&SSR' for
short) part II, belongs to the Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya communities
and thus, on the basis of the ranked list, she is entitled to be
appointed to that Turn. However, the KPSC, through Annexure A5
appointment chart, arbitrarily converted that turn to the Latin
Catholic/Anglo Indian community, stating that it is used to
compensate the LC/AI community for an E/B/T candidate
appointed on 05.04.1995 to a turn reserved for LC/AI candidates,
2026:KER:7583
as per the pre-amended Rule 15 of the KS&SSR. Annexure A5
further states that since there are no LC/AI candidates available
in the ranked list, the vacancy is kept unfilled for the NCA
Notification for LC/AI. The above action of the KPSC denying
appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires,
since, as per the amended Rule 15 (a) of the KS & SSR part II, a
vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates
belonging to the community to whom the turn belongs. The Note
to Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR part II permitting compensating
uncompensated turns as on 02.02.2006, read with the main
provision, clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in
the absence of candidates despite following the steps outlined in
Rule 15(a).
4. In the original application, the 2nd respondent filed a
reply statement dated 19.05.2025 opposing the reliefs.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 26.05.2025. After
considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by the impugned
Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2025 dismissed the original application.
The Tribunal found that the conversion of E/B/T turn to LC/AI turn
2026:KER:7583
by the KPSC is on the basis of Note to Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR
part II and that the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to get
advised only by the operation of Rules. Paragraphs 5 to 10 and
the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"5. It is an admitted position that turn at MR1 28 is that of
EBT candidate. There is no dispute over the fact that the
E/B/T derived extra benefit on 05.04.1995, when the turn
for LC/AI came, as there was no candidate available in the
LC/AI community. As per the pre-amended rules, in the
absence of a candidate from one reservation community,
that vacancy could be filled up by a candidate belonging to
the next reservation community and so on. There was a
further provision, as argued by the learned counsel for the
applicant, under Rule 15(c) which provided that the benefit
of the turn forfeited to a particular community or to a group
of community by reason of it being passed over under Sub
rules (a) and (b) shall be restored to it, at the earliest
possible opportunity, if a suitable candidate from that group
or community is available. As contended by the learned
counsel for the applicant, it is true that the Note to Rule 15
(a) of KS&SSR, as amended, does not provide that the
vacancy lost shall be given back at the earliest possible
opportunity, as was provided in Rule 15(c) of the pre-
amended Rule. But as contended by the learned Counsel for
the PSC, the Note mandates to compensate all
uncompensated turns. As long as there is no provision for
2026:KER:7583
any passing over available under the rules and it is not
possible to fill up the vacancies of one community by
another, it cannot be said that compensation of such
uncompensated turns need be made only when if candidates
are available in a rank list and in their absence, the
compensation can wait.
6. It is seen that the PSC has acted in accordance with the
Circular, only to compensate the turns lost to a community
as and when the turn of the community which derived extra
benefit. arises by keeping the vacancy unfilled and by
issuing NCA notification. Rule 15 (a) does not provide that
the compensation can wait till a candidate from a particular
community to be compensated becomes available. Rule 15
(a) of Part II KS & SSR including the Note reads as follows:
"15. (a) The integrated cycle combining the rotation in
clause (c) of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub- rule
(2) of rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexure to
this Part. Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other provisions of these rules or in the Special Rules if
a suitable candidate is not available for selection from
any particular community or group of communities
specified in the Annexure, such vacancy shall be kept
unfilled, notified separately for that community or
group of communities for that selection year and shall
be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among
that community or group of communities. If after re-
notification, repeatedly for not less than two times, no
suitable candidate is available for selection from the
2026:KER:7583
respective community or group of communities, the
selection shall be made from available Other Backward
Classes 37 candidates. In the absence of Other
Backward Classes candidates, the selection shall be
made from available Scheduled Castes candidates and
in their absence, the selection shall be made from
available Scheduled Tribes candidates
Explanation.- One 'selection year' for the purpose of this
rule shall be the period from the date on which the rank
list of candidates comes into force to the date on which
it expires.
Note.- All pending uncompensated turns of vacancies
such as temporarily passed over, no candidate available
and non-joining duty as on the 2nd February. 2006, shall
be compensated".
7. Rule 15(a) to (c) before amendment stood as follows:
"15.(a) The integrated cycle combining the rotation in
clause (c) of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub-rule
(2) of rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexure to
this Part. If a suitable candidate is not available for
selection from any particular community or group of
communities specified the Annexure, the said
community or group shall be passed over and the post
shall be filled up by a suitable candidate from the
community or group of communities immediately next
to the passed over community or group in the said
Annexure in the order of rotation. If no suitable
candidate is available for selection in any of the above
2026:KER:7583
communities or group of communities, selection shall
be made from open competition candidates.
(b)......
(c) The benefit of the turn forfeited to a particular
community or to a group of community by reason of it
being passed over under sub-rules (a) and (b) shall be
restored to it, at the earliest possible opportunity, if a
suitable candidate from that particular community or
group is available for selection by making adjustments
against the claims of the particular community or
group that derived the extra benefit by reason of such
passing over".
The purpose behind the amendment of the Rules from
2.2.2006 and behind the Note is to ensure that there is no
extra gain or extra loss for any community, in the matter of
reservation in appointments.
8. As contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it
is settled law that the Note cannot be interpreted in a
manner contrary to the intent and purpose behind the main
provision. In the present case the Note to Rule 15 (a)
provides that all pending uncompensated turns of vacancies
as on 2.2.2006 shall be compensated. Rule 15 (a) provides
that in the absence of candidates belonging to a particular
community, it shall be separately re-notified and filled up by
issuing NCA notification. As per the unamended rules, there
was a provision to fill up uncompensated vacancies or
restore the lost/forfeited turns to the community at the
earliest opportunity. It cannot be said to that the Note to
2026:KER:7583
Rule 15(a) operates in a manner defacing the main provision
as contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The
applicant happened to be deprived of the opportunity to get
advised only by operation of the Rules. It cannot be said
that PSC has acted contrary to the Rules. The judgment in
Saji's case relied on by the applicant does not apply to the
facts of the case.
9. At the same time in the judgment in Ranjit's case the
Hon'ble High Court held that Note to Rule 15(a) works as a
saving clause and that its object is to restore the benefit of
the turns lost to a particular community.
10. In the circumstances we do not find any illegality in the
action of the PSC.
Original Application is accordingly dismissed".
5. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the
Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court with this original
petition. The petitioner contends that the finding of the Tribunal is
incorrect and is against the scheme of Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR
part II, since the Note to the main provision is only to provide
clarification, and it cannot be considered independent of the main
provision. If the Note appended to Rule 15(a) is read
independently of the said Rule, it will become contradictory to the
scheme of the main provision and thus invalid. It is well settled by
the Apex Court that the Note appended to the main rule is only
2026:KER:7583
for providing clarification and that it will not dilute the rigour of
the main provision. Therefore, on reading the provision of Rule
15(a) with its Note, it is clear that if suitable candidates are
available in a particular Turn, that turn cannot be used for
compensating any uncompensated turns in the pre-amended
Rules.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and
the learned Senior Government Pleader.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the action of the KPSC denying appointment to the petitioner
is ultra vires since as per amended Rule 15(a) of the KS&SSR Part
II, a vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates
belonging to the community to whom the turn belongs. The note
appended to Rule 15(a) permitting compensating uncompensated
turns as on 02.02.2006, read with the main provisions, clarifies
that such compensation can be effected only in the absence of
candidates, despite following the steps outlined in Rule 15(a). The
note appended to the main Rule is only for providing clarification,
2026:KER:7583
and it will not dilute the rigour of the main provision. If the Note
in Rule 15(a) is read independently, it will become contrary to the
main provision and thus invalid.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
the KPSC would submit that the petitioner has not raised any
challenge against Rule 15(a) of KS&SSR Part II. The Tribunal
rightly appreciated the contentions and arrived at a proper finding
and hence no interference is needed in the impugned order.
9. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported
the order of the Tribunal and pointed out the judgment of this
Court in Ranjith C.R. v. High Court of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT
759], in support of her arguments, which was referred to in the
impugned order of the Tribunal.
10. 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.
11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
2026:KER:7583
[(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.
12. 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
2026:KER:7583
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.
13. 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.
14. 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
2026:KER:7583
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.
15. 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
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
2026:KER:7583
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.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Apex Court in V.B Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D.
U.P. School [2007 (2) KHC 534] and that of this Court in
Maidhily.M v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 203] and argued
that note to a provision is merely explanatory in nature and the
rigour of the main provision cannot be diluted by the note.
17. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the
action of the KPSC denying appointment to her is arbitrary and
discriminatory. As per Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR Part II, the vacancy
attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates belonging to
that particular community to which the turn belongs. According to
the petitioner, Note to Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR Part II would be
2026:KER:7583
contrary to the purpose behind those provisions, and it cannot
evade the main provision. The reading of the Note with the main
provision clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in
the absence of candidates despite following the steps outlined in
Rule 15(a). Moreover, even if Note to Rule 15(a) is read with the
pre-amended provision of Rule 15, such compensation can be
effected only if suitable candidates are available in a particular
turn. Therefore, the petitioner who falls in the turn 28 reserved
for the E/B/T community is entitled to be appointed.
18. The stand of the respondents is that the KPSC was not
converting any reservation turn to another as averred by the
petitioner. It was actually restoring the lost turn to the original
community, which was passed over previously in the year 1995.
Rule 15 of KS&SSR Part II clearly entrusts the KPSC to
compensate all pending, uncompensated turns of vacancies which
were passed over, due to non-availability of a particular reserved
community as on 02.02.2006. Hence, MR I 28 E/B/T TPO turn was
restored to LC/AI. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in these
actions on the part of the KPSC. It is the specific stand of the
2026:KER:7583
respondents that the Note to Rule 15(a) of KS&SSR Part II has to
be read with the pre-amended Rule 15(c) which says that the
benefit of the turn forfeited to a particular community or to a group
of community should be restored to it at the earliest possible
opportunity if a suitable candidate from that particular community
or group is available for selection by making adjustments against
the claims of the particular community or group that derived extra
benefit by reason of such passing over. If the contention of the
petitioner is accepted, it will be the continuation of the pre-
amended system of passing over.
19. The aforementioned contentions of the parties were
appreciated by the Tribunal. As found by the Tribunal, the Note to
Rule 15(a) of K.S&S.S.R. Part II provides that all pending
uncompensated turns of vacancies as on 02.02.2006 shall be
compensated. Rule 15 (a) provides that in the absence of
candidates belonging to a particular community, it shall be
separately re-notified and filled up by issuing NCA notification. As
per the unamended rules, there was a provision to fill up
uncompensated vacancies or restore the lost/forfeited turns to the
2026:KER:7583
community at the earliest opportunity. It cannot be said that the
Note to Rule 15(a) operates in a manner that deviates from the
principles of the main provision. As found by the Tribunal, the
petitioner happened to be deprived of the opportunity to get
advised only by operation of the Rules. It cannot be said that PSC
has acted contrary to the Rules. Therefore, the judgments in V.B
Prasad [2007 (2) KHC 534] and Maidhily.M [2024 (5) KHC
203] are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that
the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which
warrants the interference of this Court 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
2026:KER:7583
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 322 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY
NO.095/2022 DATED 30.04.2022 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.885/2024/SS
VII FOR THE POST OF MEDICAL OFFICER (MARMA)
IN THE DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF
MEDICINE
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIF-
2/20/2024-KPSC NOTIFIED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 12.09.2024
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIF-
2/20/2024-KPSC DATED 26.09.2024 NOTIFIED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART NO.RIF-
2/20/2024-KPSC DATED 20.01.2025 NOTIFIED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KS &
SSR PERTAINING TO RULE 15 PRIOR TO ITS
AMENDMENT VIDE G.O. (P) 7/2006/P & ARD. DATED
08.03.2006
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE IN KS & SSR
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
APPLICANT DATED 06.02.2025
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST NOTIFICATION CATEGORY
NO.42/2025 DATED 30.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A. (EKM)
411/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION [EKM]
NO.202/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON
21.05.2025
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN
OA(EKM).NO.411 OF 2025 DATED 19.05.2025 FILED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
2026:KER:7583
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 26.05.2025
Exhibit P5 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL IN OA [EKM] 411/2025 DATED
28.05.2025
