Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 45380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Ratheesh Kumar A – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 37 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K.A. Augustine
For the Respondents: Asok M. Cherian, A. J. Varghese
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to interfere unless the lower tribunal's decision is manifestly erroneous or in violation of fundamental principles of law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Article 16 - Article 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - The applicant, registered with the Employment Exchange, claimed violation of rights due to omission from the appointment despite holding Rank No.11, citing political interference and nepotism - The tribunal upheld the selection process stating no illegality was demonstrated in overlooking the petitioner’s rank, with vacancies filled in accordance with community priority guidelines - The original petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the allegations of unlawfulness against the selection. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15)
(B) Employment Exchange - Priority for intercaste married individuals - The court reiterated that while priority under G.O.(MS) No.106/76/PD applies, selection was based on merit with only one vacancy under the OBC category, thus dismissing the petitioner's claim for a position. (Paras 8, 10, 14)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner challenges the denial of employment citing violations of reservation rights. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the tribunal's dismissal of the application rests on the valid ranking and selection process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court affirms its limited jurisdiction under article 227 to intervene only in cases of manifest injustice. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. no errors in lower tribunal's judgment warranting interference were found. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1198 of 2020 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench Ernakulam, (‘the Tribunal’ in short), filed this Original Petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. The petitioner got himself registered in the Employment Exchange, Kollam, and was issued with Annexure A4 Identity Card bearing No.10/105. Annexure A5 produced by the petitioner before the Tribunal is a certificate dated 05.02.2018 issued by the Village Officer, Kilikolloor, showing that he is a member of OBC, Vilakkithala Nair Community, and he does not belong to the creamy layer. By Annexure-A6 certificate dated 09.02.2018 issued by the Secretary, Kollam Municipal Corporation, it is certified that he belongs to Below Poverty Line Category. The petitioner underwent an intercaste marriage, and his wife belongs to Scheduled Caste-Sidhanar Caste and evidencing the same, he produced Annexure-A8 certificate dated 25.04.2016 issued by the Tahsildar, Kollam. According to the petitioner, he, being a person below Poverty Line category and having completed more than ten years of age after registering his name with the Employment Exchange, is eligible for grace mark at the time of the interview.
2.1. The petitioner participated in the interview for the post of Attender in the Animal Husbandry Department, Alappuzha, on 16.02.2018. According to the petitioner, his rank in the selection list was Rank No.11. Altogether, 17 persons were already appointed to the post of Attenders. But his name was deliberately omitted, and he was not given appointment even though his Rank number was 11. Such an action on the part of the 3rd respondent is violative of the right of the petitioner under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India . It is due to political interference and nepotism that he was denied appointment. In answer to a question raised by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, he was given the answer that two more vacancies of Attenders are still lying vacant in the Animal Husbandry Department, Alappuzha, under the 3rd respondent. Contending that the denial of appointment to the petitioner is unconstitutional, unjust, illegal, and violated by malafides, he approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:
“1. To direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to give appointment to the applicant as attender in the Department of Animal Husbandry, Alappuzha since candidates lesser in rank than him were given appointment by overlooking him even though he was holding Rank No 11 in the Rank list as is evident from Annexure A-10(a).
2. To direct Respondent No. 3 to produce all the records leading to the preparation of Rank list of attenders selected by the District Animal Husbandry Department, Alappuzha for the year 2017-18 for the purpose of getting satisfied that the applicant herein is holding Rank No 11 in that Rank list as stated in answer to question number 4 in Annexure A10(a).
3. To call for all the records pertaining to the appointments hitherto given to all those candidates who were appointed as attenders from the Rank list prepared for the year 2017-18 and to verify why the applicant’s name was overlooked and he was denied appointment.
4. To quash the appointment of al
