Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Sudheer S., – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary To Government, Health And Family Welfare Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to denial of promotion based on disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. interim orders and their impact on promotion requests. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. scope of supervisory powers under article 227. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. the high court's assessment of tribunal's orders. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final ruling on original petitions. (Para 18) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna S., J.
The petitioner-applicant filed O.P.(KAT) No.43 of 2025, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the orders dated 01.04.2024 passed in O.A.(EKM) No.1918 of 2018 and M.A.(EKM) No.153 of 2019, and the order dated 13.09.2024 in R.A.(EKM) No.27 of 2024; and O.P.(KAT) No.44 of 2025 challenging the order dated 01.04.2024 passed in C.P.(EKM) No.4 of 2019 and the order dated 13.09.2024 in R.A.(EKM) No.28 of 2024, by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Ernakulam (‘the Tribunal for short’). The parties and the documents referred in this judgment are in their status as in OP(KAT)No.43 of 2025, unless otherwise stated.
2. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM)No.1918 of 2018 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the
The mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.
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 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 High Court cannot interfere with tribunal decisions unless there's a manifest error, ensuring adherence to administrative guidelines and principles of justice.
The court reinforced the entitlement of differently-abled individuals to promotional reservations under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, mandating compliance with court judgments granting....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot replace the tribunal's findings unless there is manifest error or injustice.
Judicial superintendence cannot substitute lower court findings unless severe legal errors exist, emphasizing promotion eligibility based on the completion of probation.
Ongoing disciplinary proceedings prevent inclusion in promotion select lists; temporary promotions can be made, emphasizing timely assessment of eligibility and merits for vacant posts.
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to interfere unless there is a manifest error, breach of legal principles, or failure of justice in the tribunal's decisi....
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....
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
