Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Hari Shankar R. S/o Raju H. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The petitioner-applicant, who is working as Assistant Surgeon in the Kerala Health Services Department, had approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.No.1250 of 2023, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking stay of operation of Annexure A5 order dated 05.07.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services, as far as promotion and transfer of the applicant is concerned, to Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Alathur, Palakkad, Junior Consultant; and to direct the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services to consider the relinquishment submitted by the applicant within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal and to retain the applicant in the present station.
2. In the original application, the 2nd respondent Director of Health Servies filed Ext.P2 reply statement dated 19.09.2023, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the original application, by Ext.P5 order dated 04.06.2025. Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that order read thus:
“3. The 2nd respondent fi
The High Court under Article 227 exercises supervisory jurisdiction and cannot correct lower tribunal errors without clear evidence of fundamental principles of law being violated.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not extend to converting a tribunal's decision into an appeal; it can only intervene in cases of grave dereliction of d....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error or flagrant abuse of justice by the Administrative Tribunal.
Pension eligibility is governed by prevailing conditions at the time of appointment, and service conditions may change. The court's supervisory jurisdiction does not allow review of all errors in tri....
The High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of a seniority challenge, affirming that tribunals operate within their jurisdiction unless manifest errors occur.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot extend to issuing certiorari concerning tribunal proceedings, emphasizing adherence to tribunal procedures.
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 allows intervention only in cases of patent error or injustice, not for correcting all Tribunal errors.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring lower courts act within jurisdiction, without intervening unless there is a manifest error ....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit interference unless there is gross violation of legal principles.
The Tribunal violated natural justice by failing to hear both parties before passing its order, necessitating the High Court's intervention under Article 227.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
