The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 limits interference to cases of patent errors or violations of fundamental principles of law.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

This original petition is filed, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the applicant in O.A.(EKM) No. 436 of 2025, on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’, in short), challenging Ext.P5 order dated

02.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. O.A.(EKM) No. 436 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“1. Call for the records leading to Annexures A8 and A9 and to quash the same;

2. Direct the respondents 4 and 5 to continuously engage the applicant as daily wage driver irrespective of the change of the vehicle and not to terminate the temporary service of the applicant;

3. Declare that in permitting the applicant to continue as daily wage driver as decided by the 4^th respondent Grama Panchayat in Annexure A6 is not against Annexure A11 guidelines and there is no necessity to have a new selection to appoint a temporary driver in the new vehicle of the Panchayat;

4. Declare that the reference of the matter regarding engagement of the applicant as daily wage driver to the Hon'ble Ombudsman by the 2^nd respondent is unnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and it is not a matter to be decided by the Hon'ble Ombudsman”.

3. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner has been continuing as a driver on a daily wage basis under the 4^th respondent Grama Panchayat with respect to a Mahindra Bolero vehicle. In the light of Annexure A2 report dated 23.08.2024 of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Mechanical Sub Division, since the vehicle had completed 15 years of age, the existing vehicle was dismantled. Pursuant to Annexure A3 resolution of the 4^th respondent Grama panchayat dated 27.06.2024, the petitioner was shifted to a vehicle of the Harithakarma Sena. Later, the Grama Panchayat purchased a new vehicle and when the question of appointment of the petitioner as driver was considered, there was objection and dissenting notes from the side of the 5^th respondent as well as certain members that since the vehicle is a new one, the driver also should be a new person and it should be selected on the basis of the general guidelines issued by the LSGD Department. Hence, it was decided to seek clarification from the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent, through Annexure A5 communication dated 14.01.2025, opined that there should be a fresh selection of the driver for the new vehicle. The matter was further considered by the 4^th respondent based on the clarification received. The 4^th respondent took Annexure A6 decision dated 05.02.2025, to retain the petitioner as the driver. However, based on the objection on the part of the Secretary, it was decided to seek the opinion of the Government. So, the 5^th respondent issued Annexure A7 communication dated 13.02.2025, to the 2^nd respondent and after considering this, the 2^nd respondent issued Annexure A8 communication dated 07.03.2025, referring the matter to the Ombudsman, and till such decision of the Ombudsman, Annexure A6 decision of the Grama Panchayat stands stayed. Following Annexure A8, the 5^th respondent issued Annexure A9 order dated 14.03.2025, whereby the petitioner was kept away from the duty. Hence, the petitioner challenged Annexure A8 and A9 in the original application.

4. In the original application, respondents 4 and 5 filed a reply statement dated 17.09.2025 opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. Similarly, the 3^rd respondent also filed a reply statement dated 18.11.2025 in the