Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Athul Vijayan H. S/o Sarasamma – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner contends eligibility for deputation benefits under rule 91a. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding similar cases and benefits for similar employees. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. court emphasizes limited review and non-interference in discretionary decisions. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. final ruling concludes no grounds for tribunal order interference. (Para 18 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.
1. The applicant in O.A.No.1373 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior Consultant in Anaesthesia at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District, is aggrieved by the denial of deputation benefit under Rule 91A of Kerala Service Rules Part-I for the period he underwent post-graduation course from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2015. After successfully completing the post-graduation course,
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.
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow interference unless there is a manifest error by the lower tribunal.
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.
High Court's Article 227 jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; no interference absent patent perversity or grave injustice in tribunal orders.
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.
The High Court affirmed the finality of the Tribunal's decision regarding leave recognition, emphasizing strict compliance by the Government with Tribunal's orders.
The mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings cannot be grounds for denying provisional promotion to a qualified member of the feeder category.
The denial of a No Objection Certificate for educational purposes based solely on an employee's financial liabilities is unlawful and violates service rules acknowledging the right to pursue higher s....
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....
A court may allow pension benefits by recognizing prior daily wage service despite the absence of regularization, emphasizing principles of justice and judicial precedents.
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
