Dr. Sony. N vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 9 March, 2026

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dr. Sony. N vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 9 March, 2026

The applicants in O.A.No.1680 of 2025 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.P8 interim order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in the original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioners are working as Assistant Professors in the Department of Homoeopathy in various subjects. The 1st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission ('KPSC' for short), through Gazette Notification dated 16.08.2023, invited applications for the post of Associate Professor/Reader (various subjects) in Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. Subsequently, KPSC issued an Erratum Notification dated 16.11.2023. Aggrieved by the Erratum Notification, the petitioners filed O.A. No.1638 of 2024 before the Tribunal. The O.A. was dismissed, vide order dated 23.10.2024, relying on the decision of the Additional Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.675 of 2024 dated 24.09.2024. The petitioners 2026:KER:20061 5 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 challenged the dismissal order before this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.470 of 2024. This Court, by the judgment dated 21.03.2025, allowed O.P.(KAT) No.470 of 2024, setting aside the Erratum Notification dated 16.11.2023 and directing the KPSC to proceed with the original Notification dated 16.08.2023 and conclude the recruitment process. Aggrieved by the judgment in O.P.(KAT) No.470 of 2024, additional respondents in O.P.(KAT) No.496 of 2024 filed SLP(C) No.17152 of 2025, and the KPSC filed SLP(C) No.18971 of 2025 before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.04.2025, did not stay the judgment of this Court, but observed that pendency of the petitions shall not come in the way of the selection and appointment process, which shall be subject to the outcome of the SLPs. In disregard of the binding directions of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.470 of 2024, the 1st respondent issued Annexure A5 series ranked lists brought into force with effect from 27.09.2025, based on the Erratum Notification, accepting teaching experience certificates from private colleges outside Kerala, though this Court specifically held that teaching experience should be from Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges and permanent 2026:KER:20061 6 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 registration with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council is mandatory. Since there is no stay in SLP(C) No.17152 of 2025 or SLP(C) No.18971 of 2025, the judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.470 of 2024 is in force and binding upon the 1 st respondent. Hence, the action of KPSC in reckoning teaching experience from private colleges and publishing the ranked lists is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and in deliberate violation of this Court's binding directions. With these averments, the petitioners filed O.A.No.1680 of 2025 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;

"(A) To quash and/or set aside Annexure A5 series of ranked lists, to the extent they are inconsistent with or violative of the directions contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in O.P. (KAT) No. 470 of 2024. (B) To direct the 1st respondent to reconsider and rework Annexure A5 series of ranked lists, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in O.P. (KAT) No. 470 of 2024".

3. On 29.09.2025, when the original application came up for consideration, the Tribunal directed the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC to get instructions as to whether Annexure A5 series of ranked lists are published in tune with the directions 2026:KER:20061 7 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 contained in Annexure A3 judgment. Noting the claim of the petitioners that the ranked lists are published on the basis of erratum notification despite Annexure A3 judgment setting aside the same, and the Supreme Court has not granted any stay, the Tribunal directed that no advice shall be issued from Annexure A5 series of ranked lists till the next posting date of the original application, i.e., on 06.10.2025.

4. On behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 13.10.2025 was filed in the original application opposing the reliefs sought for. To that reply statement, the petitioners filed a rejoinder dated 22.10.2025, producing therewith Annexures A7 to A9 documents.

5. The materials placed on record would show that against the issuance of Annexure A5 series of ranked lists, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Contempt Case (C) No.2446 of 2025 and by Ext.P5 judgment dated 25.11.2025, this Court closed the contempt petition observing that the petitioners have not made out a prima facie case of contempt by the respondent therein. Subsequently, the additional respondents 4 to 7 were self-impleaded in the original application.

2026:KER:20061 8 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026

6. On 05.02.2026, by virtue of the impugned Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal modified the order dated 29.09.2025 and directed not to issue advice against three vacancies from Annexure A5 ranked lists. The said order read thus;

"By order dated 29.09.2025, this Tribunal had in O.A. No. 1680 of 2025 directed the Public Service Commission that, no advice shall be issued from Annexure A5 series of Rank lists. The Public Service Commission proceeded with the erratum notification, though it was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure A3.

2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order had permitted the Public Service Commission to go ahead with the selection process. Hon'ble Supreme Court had ordered that the pendency of the petition shall not come in the way of the selection and appointment process; which process; of course shall be, subject to the outcome of the SLP.

3. Applicants submitted that an application for clarification as to the notification based on which the Public Service Commission was permitted, is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

It is admitted that, only 3 of the applicants herein have submitted application pursuant to the Notification Therefore, we find it appropriate to modify the interim order, directing the Public Service Commission, not to advise candidates against 3 vacancies. The other advices shall be subject to the outcome of this Original Application".

2026:KER:20061 9 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026

7. Being aggrieved by Ext.P8 order, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition.

8. In the original petition, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 18.02.2026 producing therewith Exts.R4(1) and R4(2) documents.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC, respective learned counsel for respondents 4, and 5 to 7 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in Annexure A3 judgment in O.P.(KAT)No.470 of 2024, this Court held that Annexure A2 erratum notification issued by the KPSC is illegal and set aside the same. Though the matter was taken up in appeal before the Apex Court by filing S.L.P. (C) No.17656 of 2025, by Annexure A4 order dated 21.04.2025, the Apex Court did not stay Annexure A3 judgment. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have prevented the KPSC from proceeding with advising the candidates based on Annexure A5 ranked lists.

11. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC would submit that in Annexure A4 order, the Apex Court 2026:KER:20061 10 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 permitted the KPSC to proceed with the selection and appointment process, subject to the outcome of that S.L.P. It is also pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that in Ext.P5 judgment, Contempt Case (C) No.2446 of 2025 filed by the petitioners were closed by this Court, noting the aforesaid Annexure A4 order of the Apex Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that in Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal has protected the interest of the petitioners by directing the KPSC not to advice candidates against three vacancies.

13. 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.

14. 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 2026:KER:20061 11 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 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."

15. 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:20061 12 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 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.

16. 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:20061 13 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

2026:KER:20061 14 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 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.

19. 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 2026:KER:20061 15 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

20. It is true that by Annexure A3 judgment dated 21.03.2025, a Division Bench of this Court allowed O.P.(KAT)No.470 of 2024 and set aside Annexure A2 erratum notification dated 16.11.2023 issued by the KPSC. But in Annexure A4 order dated 21.04.2025 in S.L.P. (C)No.17656 of 2025, the Apex Court made it clear that the pendency of that Special Leave petition shall not come in the way of the selection and appointment process, which process, ofcourse shall be subject to the outcome of that Special Leave Petition. By virtue of the aforesaid Annexure A4 order of the Apex Court, Annexure A3 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be relied on by the petitioners at this stage to contend that Annexure A3 judgment is governing the field at present. Noting Annexure A4 order of the Apex Court, this Court closed the contempt case filed by the petitioners, as per Ext.P5 judgment dated 25.11.2025. Moreover, as noticed above, the Tribunal has protected the interest of the petitioners by directing the KPSC not to advice candidates against three vacancies. In such circumstances, we find no 2026:KER:20061 16 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 illegality or impropriety in the impugned Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                                               2026:KER:20061
                                        17
OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026


                        APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 54 OF 2026

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1                  A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED

16.08.2023 IN CATEGORY NO 168/2023 - 178/2023 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/READER (IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS) IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.

GR1 C1/3/2019-KPSC DATED 16.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN O.P. (KAT) 470/2024 AND O.P.(KAT) NO. 496/2024 DECIDED ON 21.03.2025. Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 21-04-2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO(S).17656/2025.

Annexure A4(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 18-07-2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 17152/2025.

Annexure A4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 25-07-2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO. 18971/2025.

Annexure A4(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 19-08-2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 17152/2025 Annexure A4(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 26-09-2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 17152/2025 Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

                             772/2025/SSVI IN CATEGORY NO. 168/2023
                             BROUGHT   INTO   FORCE    WITH    EFFECT   FROM
                             27.09.2025   FOR   THE   POST    OF   ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR/ READER IN PRACTICE OF MEDICINE IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. Annexure A5 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

                             773/2025/SS VI IN CATEGORY NO. 169/2023
                             BROUGHT   INTO   FORCE    WITH    EFFECT   FROM
                             27.09.2025   FOR   THE   POST    OF   ASSOCIATE
                                                          2026:KER:20061
                                   18
OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026

PROFESSOR/ READER IN FORENSIC MEDICINE & TOXICOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES.

Annexure A5 (b) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

                        774/2025/SS IV IN CATEGORY NO. 170/2023
                        BROUGHT   INTO   FORCE    WITH    EFFECT   FROM
                        27.09.2025   FOR   THE   POST    OF   ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR/ READER (OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY) IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. Annexure A5 (c) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

                        775/2025/SS IV IN CATEGORY NO. 171/2023
                        BROUGHT   INTO   FORCE    WITH    EFFECT   FROM
                        27.09.2025   FOR   THE   POST    OF   ASSOCIATE
                        PROFESSOR/   READER   IN   CASE    TAKING   AND

REPERTORISATION IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES Annexure A5 (d) : A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

776/2025/SS VI IN CATEGORY NO. 172/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN MATERIA MEDICA IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES Annexure A5 (e) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

777/2025/SS VII IN CATEGORY NO. 173/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR / READER IN ORGANON OF MEDICINE AND HOMOEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES.

Annexure A5 (f): A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

778/2025/SS VII IN CATEGORY NO. 174/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN SURGERY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES.

Annexure A5(g): A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

779/2025/SS VII IN CATEGORY NO. 175/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN HOMOEOPATHIC PHARMACY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. Annexure A5(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

780/2025/SS VII IN CATEGORY NO. 176/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN ANATOMY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES.

2026:KER:20061 19 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 Annexure A5 (i): A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

781/2025/SS VII IN CATEGORY NO. 177/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN PATHOLOGY & MICROBIOLOGY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES Annexure A5(j) A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.

782/2025/SS VI IN CATEGORY NO. 178/2023 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 27.09.2025 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/ READER IN PHYSIOLOGY & BIOCHEMISTRY IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES.

Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN KUNHAYAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12309 OF 1996] DECIDED ON 19.07.2000.

Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN SANYOGITA RANE VS.

MANORAMABAI RAUJI RANE [FIRST APPEAL NO. 105

OF 2010] DECIDED ON 11.05.2012 Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND IN M/S TATA MOTORS LTD VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [WP(T) NO. 1022 OF 2008] DECIDED ON 12.08.2008 Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OA 1680/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 29.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2025 IN OA 1680 OF 2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 13.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA 1680/2025 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 22.10.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS IN OA 1680/2025 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.11.2025 OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CON.CASE(C) 2446/2025 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 146/2026 DATED 24.01.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA 1680/2025 2026:KER:20061 20 OP(KAT) No.54 of 2026 Exhibit P6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA NO. 233/2026 DATED 04.02.2026 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 IN OA 1680/2025 Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 7 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 IN OA 1680 OF 2025 ISSUED BY HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(1) Copy of the Original Notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 16/08/2023 Exhibit R4(2) Copy of the Rank List published by the 1st respondent in Category No: 178/2023 dated 27/09/2025

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court