Jayakrishnan V vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2025

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jayakrishnan V vs State Of Kerala on 26 September, 2025

The applicant in O.A.No.1624 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the 'Tribunal' in short), being dissatisfied with the interim order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application, filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner was placed in the 37 th position in Annexure A1 ranked list for the post of Police Constable (Armed Police Battalion) conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('PSC' in short). The petitioner states that though he was initially denied admission to the police training programme on the ground that his character, antecedents and suitability had not been decided by the 1st respondent, by Annexure A2 order dated 27.01.2025 in O.A. No.203 of 2025, the Tribunal directed the respondents to include him in the training scheduled to commence with the new recruits. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined the police training programme on 01.02.2025 4 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 and completed 9 months of training. But by Annexure A3 Government order dated 30.08.2025, by relying on the report of the Director General of Police (Intelligence), citing three criminal cases for the years 2015 and 2017, he was disqualified from appointment. Subsequently, by Annexure A4 order dated 12.09.2025, the petitioner was removed from the training programme, while only forty days were remaining for completion of the training. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A3 and Annexure A4 issued by the respondents and to set aside the same.

(ii) To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to continue the training programme for the post of Police Constable in the Kerala Armed Police 3rd Battalion."

3. On 18.09.2025, when the original application came up for admission, the Tribunal passed the following order:

"Admit.

Learned Government Pleader takes notice for all the respondents.

OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025

2025:KER:71592 Annexures A5 and A6 shall be subject to the result of the Original Application.

Post after two weeks".

4. Being dissatisfied with that order, since the Tribunal did not grant the interim relief directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the training programme as sought in the original application, the petitioner filed the present original petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the criminal antecedents stated in the report of the Director General of Police (Intelligence), which was relied upon by the 1 st respondent while passing Annexure A3 order, are of the years 2015 and 2017. The first criminal case registered at Charava Police Station as Crime No.1188/2015, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC was ended in acquittal by Annexure A5 judgment dated 10.01.2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavara. The 2nd criminal case bearing Crime No.1926/2015 of East Kallada Police Station, for the 6 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 offences under Section 279 of IPC and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of M.V. Act was disposed of on 16.03.2016 by payment of a fine of Rs.1500/-. The third criminal case bearing Crime No.1599/2017 of Chavara Thekkumbhagam Police Station, for the offence under Section 119(a) of the Kerala Police Act, was also concluded by Annexure A7 judgment dated 30.01.2018 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavara, on payment of a fine of Rs.3000/- by the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any criminal case thereafter and his abrupt termination will cause irreparable injuries to his future life. According to the learned counsel, indulgence of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction is highly necessary for the ends of justice.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that in Annexure A3 order dated 30.08.2025, the details of the criminal cases and why the petitioner was disqualified are stated in detail. Moreover, the Tribunal has not considered the matter on merits on 18.09.2025, and therefore, there is no necessity to interfere in the order of the Tribunal by 7 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 exercising the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

8. 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. Clause (2) of Article 227 provides that, without prejudice to the generality of the provisions under clause (1), the High Court may call for returns from such courts; make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts. Going by clause (4), nothing in Article 227 shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.

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 8 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 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 9 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 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.

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 10 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 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.

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 11 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 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.

14. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was involved in three criminal cases. All three criminal cases were concluded, as evident from Annexure A5 and Annexure A7 judgments and Annexure A6 official memorandum. However, on the basis of the report of the Director General of Police (Intelligence), noting the nature and gravity of the cases in which the petitioner was involved, by Annexure A3 order dated 30.08.2025, he was terminated from the training.

15. The Tribunal is yet to consider the rival contentions of the parties on these aspects. The non-granting of an interim order as wished by the petitioner on the date of admission of the original application by the Tribunal is not a ground for interference by this Court, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the order of the Tribunal is perverse 12 OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025 2025:KER:71592 or is suffering from patent illegality. The impugned order shows that the Tribunal adjourned the matter for hearing to a future date, probably for the reason that the Tribunal was not convinced of the prima facie case for granting the interim order as requested by the petitioner.

16. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal by invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the original petition is dismissed; however, making it clear that the petitioner can move the Tribunal for an early hearing of his prayer for interim relief.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                               MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                       13
OP(KAT) No.397 of 2025
                                                           2025:KER:71592

                         APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 397/2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1                A TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST NO.
                           460/2024/DOH, CAT NO 537/ 2022
Annexure A2                A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A NO. 203 OF

2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 27.01.2025 Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3014/2025/HOME PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.2025 Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO A2-

                           14172/2024/KAP-III     PASSED   BY   THE   4TH
                           RESPONDENT DATED 12.09.2025
Annexure A5                A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2017
                           OF   THE   HON'BLE    JUDICIAL   FIRST   CLASS
                           MAGISTRATE , CHAVARA
Annexure A6                A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM ISSUED
                           BY   THE   HON'BLE    JUDICIAL   FIRST   CLASS
                           MAGISTRATE -I, KOLLAM DATED 10.10.2023
Annexure A7                A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2018
                           OF   THE   HON'BLE    JUDICIAL   FIRST   CLASS
                           MAGISTRATE , CHAVARA
Exhibit P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.
                           1624/2025 ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURES ON THE

FILES OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 18.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH IN OA NO. 1624/2025

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court