[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Brijithson B.K vs State Of Kerala on 26 March, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.47 of 2026
2026:KER:28133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 47 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025 IN OA NO.809 OF 2020 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/2ND APPLICANT:
BRIJITHSON B.K., AGED 35 YEARS
S/O. BELINGSON, NOW RESIDING AT BRIJITHNIVA,
AALUMKUZHY, URIYANCODE P.O., THIRUVANATHAPURAM ,
KERALA, PIN - 695543
BY ADVS.
SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
SHRI.AJIN DEV S.S.
SMT.TANOOSHA PAUL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KERALA
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
3 DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT, VIKAS
BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695033
2
OP(KAT)No.47 of 2026
2026:KER:28133
4 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DISTRICT OFFICE,
ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688012
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY,
MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA, PIN - 688011
6 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
7 PREETHY K.K.,
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. MANOJ P.K, RESIDING AT PUTHANPURRAKKAL HOUSE,
KINFRA PARK P.O, MURINGOOR, CHALAKUDDI, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680309
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SHRI.ADARSH S.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. A. J. VARGHESE, SR. GP
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
3
OP(KAT)No.47 of 2026
2026:KER:28133
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The 2nd applicant in O.A.No.809 of 2020 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the
'Tribunal' for short) filed this original petition invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P1 order dated 16.07.2025
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
1st applicant is ranked No.19, and the 2nd applicant is ranked
No.43 in the reservation category of SIUC Nadar candidate in
Annexure A1 ranked list for the post of Live Stock Inspector Gr.II
in Alappuzha district. This ranked list has validity till 18.06.2020.
Twenty candidates are advised from the ranked list till date. The
cadre strength of Live Stock Inspectors in Alleppey district is 157,
out of which Live Stock Inspector Gr.II is 79. But the effective
strength as per RTI reply is only sixty two. So seventeen
vacancies are available for reporting to the 4th respondent by the
5th respondent. It is reliably understood that two Live Stock
Inspectors got inter-district transfer to Alappuzha district. These
2026:KER:28133
two vacancies are actually to be filled from the existing Annexure
A1 ranked list. It is understood that 8 Live Stock Inspectors will
be eligible for promotion against the eight vacancies of Live Stock
Inspectors existing in Alappuzha. So these eight vacancies are to
be reported to the 4th respondent and to be filled up from
Annexure A1 ranked list. Earlier, the 3rd respondent promoted
130 Live Stock Inspectors Gr.ll as Live Stock Inspectors Gr.I and
issued orders and permitted to retain in their earlier offices even
after promotion. As a result of the above direction, thirty-three
vacancies are available for the Live Stock Inspectors Gr.II category
in Alappuzha District. It is to be advised from Annexure A1 ranked
list. But these vacancies are not reported to the Public Service
Commission ('PSC' for short), despite repeated requests and
reminders. If these vacancies were not reported to the 4 th
respondent before the expiry of the Annexure A1 ranked list, the
applicants will be put to irreparable loss and agony. The non-
reporting of vacancies to the PSC is a violation of the fundamental
rights of the applicants enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. With these pleadings, the petitioner and
the co-applicant filed O.A. No.809 of 2020 before the Tribunal
2026:KER:28133
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
seeking the following reliefs;
"1. Call for the records to assess the availability of vacancies
for the post of Live Stock Inspector Gr.ll/ Poultry Assistant/
Milk Recorder/ Store Keeper/ enumerator in the Animal
Husbandry Department in Alleppey district liable to be
advised from Annexure A1 ranked list and non reporting of
the existing vacancies to the 4th respondent.
2. To declare that the applicants are eligible for advice and
appointment from Annexure A1 ranked list.
3. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 3 rd
respondent and 5th respondent to report all existing and
arising vacancies during the pendency of Annexure A1
ranked list before the expiry of the ranked list.
4. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 1st and 3rd
respondents to issue directions to the 5th respondent for
reporting all existing and arising vacancies during the
pendency of Annexure-A1 ranked list to the 4th respondent.
5. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the 4 th
respondent to issue advice memo to the eligible candidates
from the Annexure-A1 ranked list on receipt of the reporting
of vacancies during the pendency of Annexure 1 ranked list.
6. Order or Direction may kindly issued to the to the 1st and
3rd respondents to issue promotion orders to the eligible
Live Stock Inspectors to higher posts and to report all the
resultant vacancies of Live Stock Inspectors Grade II
available and arising during the pendency of Annexure 1
2026:KER:28133
ranked list to Kerala Public Service Commission without
resorting to other methods of appointment.
7. Order or direction may be issued to the 1st and 3rd
respondents to report all the vacancies available
consequent on the leave granted to officers for more than
6 (six) months and consequent on the relief of Live Stock
Inspectors to the 4th respondent before the expiry of
Annexure --A1 ranked list".
3. The 5th respondent in the original application filed a reply
statement dated 06.02.2023, the 1st respondent in the original
application filed a reply statement dated 21.03.2023, and the
respondents 2 and 4 in the original application filed a reply
statement dated nil, opposing the reliefs sought for. Thereafter,
by the impugned Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal dismissed the original
application along with two other similar original applications. Being
aggrieved, the 2nd applicant in the original application is now
before this Court with this original petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - 2nd
applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that there were 17 vacancies of Livestock Inspectors Gr.II in the
district cadre of Alappuzha. The 1st respondent failed to report
2026:KER:28133
the vacancies to the PSC. At the time of admitting the original
application, the Tribunal rightly issued an interim order directing
the reporting of 33 vacancies to the PSC. In such circumstances,
the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with.
6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader would submit that the actual strength of the Livestock
Inspector Gr.II in Alappuzha district is 79, and the full strength of
the Livestock Inspector Gr.II is available. Therefore, there was no
vacancy during the currency of the ranked list to appoint the
applicants in the original applications filed before the Tribunal.
Therefore, no interference is needed on the impugned order of the
Tribunal.
7. 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.
8. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd
[(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
2026:KER:28133
by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a
duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court
or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent
on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if
there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."
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
2026:KER:28133
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
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
2026:KER:28133
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
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
2026:KER:28133
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
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
2026:KER:28133
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. We have carefully gone through the impugned order of
the Tribunal and the materials placed on record. From the
impugned order, we notice that the Tribunal had considered the
availability of the vacancies of Livestock Inspector Gr.II claimed by
the applicants in the original application in another matter, that is,
in O.A.No.1164 of 2020 and found that the vacancies are not
available for reporting to the PSC. The said order of the Tribunal
was confirmed by the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.277
of 2024. As far as the claim of availability of substantive vacancies
is concerned, the Tribunal found that those 33 promotion
vacancies claimed by the applicants had not actually arisen, as is
evident from Annexures A9 and A10 orders dated 04.06.2020 and
09.03.2020, respectively, issued by the Director of Animal
Husbandry, the relevant portions of which are extracted in the
impugned order. The petitioner - 2nd applicant has failed to
produce any material to hold the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal
as illegal or perverse.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments
2026:KER:28133
referred to supra, we find no ground to interfere with the
impugned Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal.
In the result, the original petition stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:28133
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 47 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 472/17/DOA
FOR CATEGORY NO. 68/2014 WITH EFFECT FROM
09.05.2017 FOR ALLEPPY DISTRICT
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART FOR
CATEGORY NO. 68/2014 FOR ALLEPPEY DISTRICT
DATED 12.07.2019
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K4-19233/2016/GK,
DATED 13.03.2017
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO. 46/2020/AHD, DATED
11.02.2020
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUESTION BY SIBIJA SHAJI
DATED 17.10.2019 TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO SHIBIJA SHAJI BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST EMPLOYEES RETIRING FROM
SERVICE FROM 30.11.2019 TO 31.05.2020
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL
SENIORITY LIST OF LIVE STOCK INSPECTORS IN
THE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT AS ON
1.9.2016 PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AHD/5380/2019-K4 DATED
4.6.2020 BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. AHD/5380/2019-K4,
DATED 09.03.2020 THE 3RS RESPONDENT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATUS OF POST FOR CAT CODE
68/2014 FOR ALAPPUZHA AS SEEN IN THE WEBSITE
OF THE PSC
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GO(P) NO.
27/2021/FIN DATED 10-2-2021
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ADVICE
DETAILS FOR THE POST OF LIVESTOCK INSPECTOR
GRADE II IN ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT WITH
APPOINTMENT CHART DATED 1-7-2020
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2025
PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.809/2020 DATED 09.06.2020
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
2026:KER:28133
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY
THE 2ND AND 4TH RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART OF THE
PSC ALLEPPEY DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN O.A
NO.1624/2020 DATED 18.10.2024
