Prineesh.P.P,S/O.Prabhakaran.P.K vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Prineesh.P.P,S/O.Prabhakaran.P.K vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2026

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1580 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 19.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is working as an L.D. Clerk (now redesignated as Clerk) in the Civil Supplies Department. The petitioner was included in the ranked list for L.D. Clerk of Thrissur District and was advised and appointed in Thrissur District. While so, the petitioner was deputed to Supplyco as per Annexure A3 order dated 22.03.2018 of the Government. Thereafter, on completion of the deputation period, there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in Thrissur District. Therefore, in such a peculiar situation, the petitioner was adjusted and posted to Malappuram District as per Annexure A4 order dated 19.09.2023 of the 2nd respondent Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The 4 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 petitioner's house is at Pazhayannur. Hence, the posting of the petitioner to Malappuram District caused him much hardship. He therefore requested to be appointed in his parent district, Thrissur. Alternatively, he requested a posting in Palakkad District, and accordingly, he was posted to the present station in Palakkad District. The petitioner further pleaded that recruitment, appointments, and transfers are to be effected as per the norms of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD). In extraordinary situations, to avoid the retrenchment of L.D. Clerks, for want of vacancies in a district, appointments are made to other districts purely on an adjustment basis for a very short period, i.e., till the arising of the next vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner shall be appointed back to Thrissur District at the earliest point in time when a vacancy arises. There exist five vacancies in Thrissur District. Therefore, the petitioner shall be transferred and accommodated in any of the offices in Thrissur District. But, as per Annexures A6 order dated 15.10.2025 of the District Supply Officer, Palakkad and A7 order dated 15.10.2025 of the Taluk Supply Officer, Ottappalam, he was transferred to the Attappady Taluk Office. Inter-district transfer is not permitted for 5 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 district-wise recruitments as per the general orders issued by P&ARD, and hence, he shall be returned to Thrissur on arising vacancies in that district and shall not be treated as if he was recruited to Palakkad District. The petitioner was appointed to the present office in 2024 and has not even completed three years in the present station. Even though there are clerks who have completed three years in the station and also juniors in service, the petitioner, who has completed only one year, was transferred. The petitioner is to be posted back to Thrissur. Contending Annexures A6 and A7 as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary, the petitioner approached the Tribunal.

3. In the original application, the 4th respondent filed a reply statement dated 13.11.2025 opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 25.11.2025. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the order dated 19.12.2025, disposed of the original application. Paragraphs 6 to 6.2 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

"6. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a specific request for transfer and posting to Palakkad District. The authorities allowed the request and posted him to Palakkad.

6 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025

2026:KER:6967 His objection comes when he is sought to be redeployed to Attappady, a newly opened office in an underserved area. The respondents have also explained the rationale behind preferring the applicant over other employees. We find that the rationale/reasons elaborated in the reply statement are convincing.

6.1 As regards the request for transfer to his home district Thrissur, it transpires from the reply statement that the transfer and postings in Civil Supplies Department are stayed until the online transfer module is in place in the Department. The respondents on their part have also committed that once such an online system is ready, the applicant's request for transfer would be considered on priority.

6.2 In view of the foregoing, the interim order restraining the respondents from redeploying the applicant to Attappady is vacated. Needless to say, the respondents will consider the applicant's request for transfer to Thrissur on priority, as and when the Department is ready for online transfer, and applications are invited for general transfer as per the transfer norms.

The Original Application is disposed of accordingly".

4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has filed the present original petition. On 23.12.2025, when this original petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. By the order dated 23.12.2025, this Court made it clear that no junior shall be posted to Thrissur without orders 7 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 from this Court.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, disregarding the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court, the respondents have posted juniors of the petitioner in Thrissur, without seeking permission from this Court. Therefore, the petitioner filed Contempt Case (C) No.1 of 2026, in which the respondents filed an affidavit dated 21.01.2026 raising untenable contentions. The learned counsel further submitted that the direction in paragraph 6.2 of the impugned order of the Tribunal is also violated by the respondents.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the respondents received the copy of the interim order of this Court only on 03.01.2026. By that time, the juniors of the petitioner were posted in Thrissur district in the available vacancies. The direction of the Tribunal could not be complied with, since the online transfer module to be implemented as directed by this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.529 of 2024 has yet to be completed.

OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025

2026:KER:6967

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.

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 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 9 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 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.

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 10 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 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 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 11 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 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.

14. We have carefully perused the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar. In the instant case, the petitioner, who was deputed to supplyco while working as an LD Clerk in the Civil Supplies Department, is seeking his posting in his original district of posting, on repatriation to the parent department, on completion of the period of deputation. But admittedly, the petitioner was not posted back to Thrissur at the relevant time, which according to the respondents, is due to non- availability of the vacancy at Thrissur. However, even after the impugned order of the Tribunal, and also the interim order of this 12 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 Court dated 23.12.2025 in this original petition restraining the respondents from posting any junior of the petitioner to Thrissur, the respondents have posted juniors of the petitioner at Thrissur. Therefore, the respondents cannot overlook the right of the petitioner by taking shelter under the directions in O.P.(KAT)No.529 of 2024.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, this original petition is disposed of, directing the competent among the respondents to give posting to the petitioner at Thrissur, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                    MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                          13




OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025
                                                                   2026:KER:6967


                         APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 506 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A1                   A    TRUE    COPY   OF    THE    ADVICE    MEMO

NO.R1(3)3633/13 DATED 23.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.(CS)B7-6478/2017 DATED 21.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure A3                   . A TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.157/2018/F&CS
                              DATED    22.03.2018    ISSUED   BY   THE    1ST
                              RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4                   A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CCS/1274/2023-B1
                              DATED    19.09.2023    ISSUED   BY   THE    2ND
                              RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5                   A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.CCS/1182/2024-B1
                              DATED    19.02.2024    ISSUED   BY   THE    2ND
                              RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6                   A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DSOPKD/547/2025-CSI
                              DATED 15.10.2025.
Annexure A7                   A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. TSOOTP/308/2024-CSE

DATED 15.10.2025 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM.

Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CCS/893/2023-B8 DATED 30.10.2025.

Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE OA[EKM] NO.1580/2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.11.2025 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA[EKM] NO.1580/2025 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE MA[EKM] NO.1718/2025 IN OA[EKM] NO.1580/2025 DATED 13.11.2025 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

Exhibit P4                    A COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 25.11.2025
                              FILED    BY   THE   PETITIONER    IN    OA[EKM]

NO.1580/2025 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

Exhibit P5 A COPY OF MA [EKM] NO.1784/2025 IN OA[EKM] NO.1580/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM DATED 13.11.2025.

Exhibit P6 A COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA [EKM] NO.1580/2025 14 OP(KAT) No.506 of 2025 2026:KER:6967 DATED 19.12.2025 0F THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.4/61/PD DATED 02.01.1961.

Exhibit P8 A COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.442/80/GAD DATED 26.09.1980.

Exhibit P9 A COPY OF THE GO (MS) NO.180/81/GAD DATED 03.06.1981.

Exhibit P10 A COPY OF THE GO (P) NO.3/2017/P&ARD DATED 25.02.2017.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court