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.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

Respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.1023 of 2021, 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 04.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the original application.

2. As per the pleadings in the original application, the applicant entered service as a part-time sweeper at the Primary Health Centre, Kanthalloor, with effect from 25.05.1991, and was promoted as Hospital Attender Grade-II in the year 1991 itself. Subsequently, the applicant and similarly appointed persons were served with charge memos and show cause notices in the year 1994 and 1995, respectively, stating that their appointment was unauthorised and against the rules. Thereafter, the applicant and similar appointees were removed from service, and they approached this Court by filing O.P.No.13655 of 1999. By virtue of Annexure A1 judgment dated 09.12.2008 in that original petition, this Court quashed the respective orders that imposed punishment of removal from service on the applicant and other similar persons. The applicant has been working as a Hospital Attendant Grade-II since his entry in service in the year 1991, without any break in service. After Annexure A1 judgment, she approached the 2^nd respondent for granting yearly increments and promotion to the higher post on several occasions. Since those representations were not heeded, the applicant submitted Annexure A2 representation on 08.02.2021 before the 1^st respondent, ventilating her grievance. But that representation was also not considered. Therefore, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a declaration that she is entitled for increment of pay and all other benefits from the date of appointment as Hospital Attendant Grade-II; a declaration that the applicant is entitled for promotion to time bound higher grade considering her service from 1991 onwards; and direct the respondents to disburse all arrears of pay due to the applicant along with 12% interest.

3. The 2^nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 27.07.2021 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that reply statement read thus;

“5. It is submitted that the applicant is one among the 18 appointees who got appointment as Part Time Sweeper in Health Services Department by producing bogus certificates in 1991. As these 18 candidates were appointed irregularly by producing fake certificates, a vigilance case is still pending against them.

6. It is submitted that the applicant is initially appointed as Part Time Sweeper at PHC Kanthalloor with effect from 25.05.1991 and was promoted as Hospital Attendant Grade 2 in the same year. Complaints received before the authority that 18 candidates including the applicant were appointed as Part Time Sweeper irregularly and an enquiry has been conducted by the Department as well as the vigilance. On the basis of enquiries, it became clear that those 18 appointments were irregular and 18 candidates got appointment by producing bogus certificates to the authority.

7. It is submitted that Sri.Kunjukani, who is also included in the said 18 irregular appointees had approached the Hon’ble High Cou