The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be employed to correct all errors of lower courts; it is exercised only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or manifest injustice.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.2188 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P2 order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is presently working as Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Adoor, having assumed charge on 22.06.2020. He entered Government service as Higher Secondary School Teacher (Political Science) on 18.01.2005 through Kerala Public Service Commission selection and has rendered nearly two decades of continuous, unblemished service in various Government Higher Secondary Schools across the State. Throughout his service career, no adverse remark, disciplinary action or vigilance proceeding has ever been sustained against him. In recognition of his professional competence and integrity, he was promoted as Principal in the year 2020, his first posting being at the present institution. Now the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A1 transfer order G.O (Rt) No.10570/2025/GEDN dated 27.12.2025.

2.1. Immediately upon assuming charge as Principal, the petitioner noticed that a faction of senior teachers, acting in concert with certain РТA functionaries, were operating in a manner detrimental to academic discipline, financial propriety and institutional governance. In discharge of his statutory duties as Head of Institution, the petitioner introduced corrective and transparency-oriented measures, including installation of CCTV cameras pursuant to PTA resolution, regulation of uniform procurement and distribution, proper conduct of SRG meetings, systematic academic monitoring and periodic class assessments. These measures curtailed the unchecked autonomy previously enjoyed by certain teachers and triggered strong resentment, culminating in a sustained and vindictive campaign against the petitioner. The first such complaint dated 30.08.2021 filed before the Chief Minister by the PTA Vice President. The then Regional Deputy Director, after conducting a detailed and independent enquiry, by Annexure A5(a) report categorically held that all allegations were false, fabricated and devoid of merit. Undeterred, the same group continued to file repetitive complaints. One such complaint was taken up by the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, which discovered that even the address of the complainant was fabricated. After full investigation, the Bureau found no irregularity whatsoever on the part of the petitioner and recommended closure of proceedings by Annexure A6 report dated 20.07.2024. The very same allegations were again examined departmentally by the then Regional Deputy Director, culminating in Annexure A7 report dated 21.11.2024, reaffirming that the complaints were unfounded and motivated. When all departmental and vigilance routes failed, certain senior teachers escalated matters by misusing the identity of students to file a complaint before the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The Commission, after an exhaustive quasi-judicial enquiry, passed Annexure A8 order dated 28.01.2025 holding that the complaints were fabricated, filed with ulterior motives, and that senior teachers were the real architects of the false propaganda. The Commission dropped all proceedings against the petitioner and even recommended transfer of teachers who had stagnated in the institution for more than ten years.

2.2. The petitioner further states that despite such repeated and authoritative exonerations