Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K.Narendran, Muralee Krishna S.
Deepa P. Mathew – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By The Secretary To Government, Tourism Government Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis of the applicant's claim. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tribunal's review of the case. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments regarding procedural compliance. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. supervisory powers of the high court under article 227. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. no breach of procedures in terminations. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.1213 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioner, while working as a part-time sweeper in the District office of the Tourism Department, Wayanad, was appointed on promotion as a full-time sweeper and posted at Government Guest House, Sultan Bathery, as per Annexure A2 order dated 20.04.2022, but permitted to continue in the District office itself. She was on probation for a period of one year within a continuous period of two years, which expired on 23.04.2023. She submitted Annexure A3 representation dated 15.05.2023
The High Court's supervisory power under Article 227 allows for interference only in cases of gross injustice or procedural lapses, reaffirming that a probationer's termination must follow proper inq....
The court upheld that the High Court's supervisory role under Article 227 limits intervention to severe errors, while reaffirming settled matters should not be reopened.
The mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.
The High Court, under Article 227, upheld that disciplinary proceedings were lawfully conducted, with minor penalties validly imposed, affirming limited grounds for supervisory review over administra....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be employed to correct all errors of lower courts; it is exercised only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or manifest injustice.
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 period for passing departmental tests under Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules is calculated from the date of vacancy, not the order of promotion.
Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction limited; no interference absent perversity or injustice in tribunal orders on disciplinary punishments.
The distinction between the standards of proof in disciplinary and criminal proceedings is critical; mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically negate findings in disciplinary actions b....
Article 227 limits High Court interference to grave perversity; upheld regularization of long-serving sweeper despite nomenclature dispute.
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
