IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Geetha R, D/o Gangadharan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
The petitioner filed O.A.No.1446 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A1 order dated 11.08.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services; an order directing the respondents to retain her in the present station, i.e., Family Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram; or in the alternative to direct the respondents to accommodate her in the open vacancy at Integrated Health Centre, Pangappara, Thiruvananthapuram. The said original application filed by the petitioner-applicant, who is working as Assistant Surgeon at Primary Health Centre, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram, was disposed of by Ext.P2 order dated 20.08.2025 of the Tribunal. Paragraphs 2, 3 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“2. Annexure A1 transfer order would show that the said order is issued in the light of a complaint followed by the preliminary inquiry. The applicant's contention is that she had submitted a complaint against one of the office staff to the 3rd respondent as well as b
Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
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 under Article 227 exercises supervisory jurisdiction and cannot correct lower tribunal errors without clear evidence of fundamental principles of law being violated.
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'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.
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 under Article 227 allows intervention only in cases of patent error or injustice, not for correcting all Tribunal errors.
The Tribunal violated natural justice by failing to hear both parties before passing its order, necessitating the High Court's intervention under Article 227.
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 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 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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.