Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Divya Sadasivan, W/o. Dr. Premjith – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.518 of 2025 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department as per Annexure A1 appointment order dated 10.02.2006 of the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services, and she joined duty on 16.02.2016. The petitioner submitted option for placement to the administrative cadre- Branch A as prescribed under Rule 5 of Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010 (‘Special Rules’ in short), which came into force with effect from 01.01.2007, by virtue of Annexure A2 Government Order dated 17.02.2010. The petitioner was accordingly included in the seniority list of the administrative cadre and placed as Junior Administrative Medical Officer as per Annexure A3 order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2015. She was undergoing her Post Graduation Diplom
The irrevocable nature of options under the Special Rules must be upheld, allowing placement in the Speciality Cadre after acquiring additional qualifications as per specified conditions.
The court held that the Special Rules prohibit relinquishment of the option for placement in the Speciality Cadre once exercised, prevailing over general provisions in KS&SSR.
High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to appellate review; qualifications for civil service maintained under established rules.
Court ruled that dismissal of petitioner's application without considering vital documents regarding post equivalency and qualifications was improper, necessitating a reassessment of the case.
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.
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave injustices and does not allow the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of lower tribunals.
Judicial superintendence cannot substitute lower court findings unless severe legal errors exist, emphasizing promotion eligibility based on the completion of probation.
Transfer of government employees is an administrative prerogative; courts will only intervene in cases of malafides or statutory violations.
Court affirmed that compassionate grounds can influence transfer decisions; the authority's discretion prevails unless there's a clear breach of rights or malafide actions.
The mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.
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
