The scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 allows intervention only in cases of grave procedural failure or manifest error, reaffirming its non-appellate nature.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1580 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is working as an L.D. Clerk (now redesignated as Clerk) in the Civil Supplies Department. The petitioner was included in the ranked list for L.D. Clerk of Thrissur District and was advised and appointed in Thrissur District. While so, the petitioner was deputed to Supplyco as per Annexure A3 order dated 22.03.2018 of the Government. Thereafter, on completion of the deputation period, there was no vacancy to accommodate the petitioner in Thrissur District. Therefore, in such a peculiar situation, the petitioner was adjusted and posted to Malappuram District as per Annexure A4 order dated 19.09.2023 of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. The petitioner’s house is at Pazhayannur. Hence, the posting of the petitioner to Malappuram District caused him much hardship. He therefore requested to be appointed in his parent district, Thrissur. Alternatively, he requested a posting in Palakkad District, and accordingly, he was posted to the present station in Palakkad District. The petitioner further pleaded that recruitment, appointments, and transfers are to be effected as per the norms of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&ARD). In extraordinary situations, to avoid the retrenchment of L.D. Clerks, for want of vacancies in a district, appointments are made to other districts purely on an adjustment basis for a very short period, i.e., till the arising of the next vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner shall be appointed back to Thrissur District at the earliest point in time when a vacancy arises. There exist five vacancies in Thrissur District. Therefore, the petitioner shall be transferred and accommodated in any of the offices in Thrissur District. But, as per Annexures A6 order dated 15.10.2025 of the District Supply Officer, Palakkad and A7 order dated 15.10.2025 of the Taluk Supply Officer, Ottappalam, he was transferred to the Attappady Taluk Office. Inter-district transfer is not permitted for district-wise recruitments as per the general orders issued by P&ARD, and hence, he shall be returned to Thrissur on arising vacancies in that district and shall not be treated as if he was recruited to Palakkad District. The petitioner was appointed to the present office in 2024 and has not even completed three years in the present station. Even though there are clerks who have completed three years in the station and also juniors in service, the petitioner, who has completed only one year, was transferred. The petitioner is to be posted back to Thrissur. Contending Annexures A6 and A7 as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary, the petitioner approached the Tribunal.

3. In the original application, the 4^th respondent filed a reply statement dated 13.11.2025 opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioner. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 25.11.2025. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the order dated 19.12.2025, disposed of the original application. Paragraphs

6 to 6.2 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“6. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a specific request for t