Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Dr. B. Unnikrishnan on 9 February, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026
2026:KER:12645
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 20TH MAGHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 31 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 IN OA NO.1858 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OA :
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695035
3 DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR & PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT,HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
BY ADV A.J.VARGHESE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:
DR. B. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.K.G. BHASKARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES/ DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT,
DISTRICTMODEL HOSPITAL, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695005. RESIDING AT 15/283, VALIYAMEDAYIL, KRISHNANKOVIL
JUNCTION, FORT NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695121
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026
2026:KER:12645
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The respondents in O.A.No.1858 of 2024 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.P5 order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is presently working as Deputy Superintendent in the cadre of Assistant Director of Health Services in the Health Services Department. The next posts in the line of promotion to the respondent are those of Deputy Director and Additional Director. The respondent is a differently-abled person suffering from more than 40% Locomotor Disability. The Supreme Court has, in various decisions, held that persons with disabilities are entitled to be given reservations in the matter of promotions in the light of the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as well as the earlier Act of 1995. Although the respondent, as early as on 12.08.2022, had submitted Annexure 3 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 A7 representation seeking the benefit of the above decisions, the same was rejected as per Annexure A8 Government Order dated 02.12.2022. But Annexure A8 Government Order was set aside by this Court in Annexure A9 judgment dated 09.08.2023 in O.P.(KAT) No.312 of 2023 and directed the petitioners to take all expeditious steps to ensure that the case of the respondent for regular promotion by lateral reservation, should be immediately placed before the DPC and if there is any undue delay in convening the DPC process then the 1st petitioner will immediately consider the case of the respondent for temporary/provisional promotion in accordance with Rule 31(a)(i) of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (Part II). Annexure A9 judgment has attained finality through Annexures A14 order dated 23.02.2024 in SLP(C) No.7352 of 2024 and A15 order dated 18.07.2024 in Review Petition (C) No.1148 of 2024 in SLP(C) No.4869 of 2024 of the Supreme Court, and the petitioners are bound to comply with the directions contained therein in strict adherence to the observations of this Court. Also, there is no question of identification of posts since the same has been identified as suitable for accommodating persons with disabilities, which has 4 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 been admitted in Annexure A8 Government Order and has been taken note of in Annexure A9 judgment. However, the 1st petitioner issued Annexure A16 order dated 18.10.2024, rejecting the respondent's claim for lateral reservation with regard to promotion, which is unsustainable and per se contumacious, being blatantly against the observations of this Court, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court and therefore is liable to be set aside.
2.1. In the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the respondent-applicant sought the following reliefs:
"(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A16 GO and quash the same being violative of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Annexure A9 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court
(ii) To direct the respondents to promote the applicant to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from 19.04.2017 and to consequentially promote him to the post of Additional Director with effect from 19.10.2017, with all consequential benefits
(iii) To deciare that the applicant is entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from 19.04.2017 and to consequentially promote him to the 5 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 post of Additional Director with effect from 19.10.2017, with all consequential benefits, in tune with reservation in promotion afforded to persons with disabilities as per Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
(iv) To declare that promotions already effected to the post of Deputy Director and Additional Director of Health services in violation of Annexure A9 judgment is illegal.
(iv)(a) To call for the records leading to Annexure A20 and quash the same to the extent it regularises the promotion of the applicant as Deputy Director of Health Services only with effect from 15.01.2025."
2.2. On behalf of the 1st petitioner, a reply statement dated 03.06.2025 was filed in the original application opposing the reliefs sought for and produced therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Thereafter, an additional reply statement dated 22.09.2025 was filed on behalf of the 1st petitioner, producing therewith a copy of the Government order dated 26.10.2023 bearing GO(P) No.6/2023 /SJD, again marking it as Annexure R1(a). To the reply statements filed by the 1st petitioner, the respondent-applicant filed a rejoinder dated 12.07.2025.
2.3. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal by Ext.P5 order dated 18.11.2025 allowed the original application. Paragraphs 4 to 7 6 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:
"4. But Annexure-R1(a) order has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 06.10.2025 in Writ Appeal No.173 of 2025, in the light of the office memorandum issued by the Government of India on 17.05.2020 and the judgments of the Apex Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [(2016) 13 SCC 153], Siddaraju [2020 (1) KHC 609] and State of Kerala and others v. Leesamma Joseph [(2021) 9 SCC 208]. The applicant has sought for a direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from 19.04.2017 and to the post of Additional Director of Health Services with effect from
19.10.2017 with consequential benefits. The applicant was already promoted as Assistant Director on 04.03.2014. Therefore the applicant seeks promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Health Services with effect from the date on which the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act came into force on 19.04.2017 and further promotion as Additional Director on completion of probation in the Boat of Deputy Director.
5. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the promotions in tune with the 2016 Act are being implemented only after the Government issued orders on 15.07.2022 subsequent to the judgment of the Apex Court in Leesamma Joseph's case (cited supra). However the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Leesamma Joseph's case (cited supra) was to grant her promotion 7 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 with retrospective effect. The contentions raised on the basis of the Government Order dated 15.07.2022 was already repelled by the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure-A9 judgment. Therefore the respondents cannot reject the claim of the applicant on the basis of Annexure-A4 Government Order. The contention of the respondents that there would be reservation only in one post cannot also be accepted in the light of Annexure-A9 judgment where the Division Bench held as follows:
"11. It is to be borne in mind that, where the method of appointment is solely by promotion, then there is no question of denying the claim for lateral reservation in promotion, unless on the ground of non-suitability of DA candidates to hold such promotion post. It is also now the settled approach that, where the feeder category of the post in the promotion line is already identified as suitable for lateral reservation in the DA quota, then separate identification in the promotion post may not be required. We need not go in to those aspects, for the simple reason that the respondents have a case in Annexure A15 rejection order, that disabled persons, like the petitioner, is indeed otherwise eligible for holding the claimed post in question. Therefore, the above said interpretation, sought to be projected by the respondents before the Tribunal is to; say the least, palpably perverse and manifestly unreasonable."
6. The other contentions raised in Annexure-R1(a) order is 8 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 also liable to be repelled in the light of the judgment in Writ Appeal No.173 of 2025 as the said order has to be treated as once it is set aside by the Hon'ble High Court.
7. Therefore in view of the dictum laid down in Rajeev Kumar's case (cited supra), Siddaraju's case (cited supra) and in Leesamma Joseph's case (cited supra), the applicant would be entitled to be granted promotion from the respective dates as claimed, that is with effect from 19.04.2017 and 19.10.2017, as the respondents do not have a case that there is any adverse remarks against the applicant during the relevant period and the only reason for rejection are the Government Orders referred. Therefore the Original Application is allowed. Annexure-A20 order to the extent it granted regularisation of the promotion of the applicant only with effect from 15.01.2025 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to issue orders revising the promotion granted to the applicant to the post of Deputy Director with effect from 19.04.2017 and thereafter to grant him promotion as Additional Director of Health Services with effect from 19.10.2017. This shall be done within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order".
3. In this original petition filed by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal, the petitioners contend that the judgment in W.A.No.173 of 2025 is challenged in a review petition and the same is pending 9 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 consideration before this Court. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not have brushed aside the contentions raised relating to Annexure R1(a) order by the petitioners.
4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. 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.
6. 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 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 10 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 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."
7. 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 11 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 subordinate to the High Court.
8. 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 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.
9. 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 12 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 13 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 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 the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
12. While going through the pleadings and materials on record and the impugned Ext.P5 order of the Tribunal in the light of the submissions made at the Bar, it is clear that the issue raised in the original application is covered in the common judgment dated 06.10.2025 passed by this Court in W.A.No.173 of 2025 and connected matters. The relevancy of Annexure R1(a) 14 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 government order relied on by the petitioners was also found against the petitioners in that judgment. Though the petitioners contend that a review petition filed by the Government is pending before this Court, against the judgment in W.A.No.173 of 2025, the said review petition was dismissed by this Court on 05.02.2026 as per a common order in R.P.No.1506 of 2025 and connected matters. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned Ext.P5 order passed by the Tribunal.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE 15 OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026 2026:KER:12645 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 31 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF DISABILITY CERTIFICATE NO.
923/94 ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE APPLICANT DATED 13.07.1994.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES NO.11/05 ISSUED BY TALUK HOSPITAL, NEYYATTINKARA TO THE APPLICANT DATED 16.03.2005.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NO.38- 16/2020-DD-III ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT UNDER THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DATED 04.01.2021.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO.5/2022/SJD DATED 15.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULARNO.RULES1/136/2022/P&ARD ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT DATED 23.09.2022.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL IN OA NO. 1113/2020 DATED
02.08.2022.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.08.2022.
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 2854/2022/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
02.12.2022.
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA IN OP(KAT) NO. 312 OF 2023
DATED 09.08.2023.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3031/2023/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
17.11.2023.
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.3178/2023/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
01.12.2023.
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO. 2718 OF 2023 DATED 12.01.2024.
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 388/2024/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
08.02.2024.
16
OP(KAT)No.31 of 2026
2026:KER:12645
Annexure A14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT BEARING SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. DIARY NO. 7352/2024 DATED 23.02.2024.
Annexure A15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1148 OF2024 IN SLP(CIVIL)NO. 4869 OF 2024 DATED 18.07.2024.
Annexure A16 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO. 2484/2024/H&FWD
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
18.10.2024.
Annexure A17 TRUE COPY OF CIRCUALR NO. ES4-24129/2024/DHS
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
14.11.2024.
Annexure A18 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO.63/2025/H&FWD ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2025.
Annexure A19 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 10/2025/H&FWD ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2025.
Annexure A20 TRUE COPY OF GO(RT) NO. 431/2025/H&FWD ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2025.
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT)NO.86/2025/H&FWD DATED
13.01.2025.
Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE GO(P)NO.6/2023/SJD DATED
26.10.2023.
Annexure A21 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF GO(MS)
NO. 152/09/H&FWD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.06.2009.
Annexure A22 TRUE COPY OF GO(P) NO. 25/2025/H&FWD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2025.
Exhibit P1 A PHOTOCOPY OF THE O.A. NO. 1858 OF 2024 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 03.06.2025 IN OA NO.1858 OF 2024.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF MA NO. 1285 OF 2025 IN OA NO.
1858 OF 2024.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL STATEMENT DATED 22.09.2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA NO.
1858 OF 2024.
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2025 IN OA NO.1858 OF 2024