The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and cannot be used as an appellate remedy unless the subordinate tribunal's order is patently perverse, unreasonable, or in direct conflict with settled law.

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner-applicant filed O.A.(EKM)No.369 of 2023 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A5 order dated 01.07.2022 of the 1st respondent State, whereby, Annexure A2 application dated 11.11.2021 made by the applicant before the Advocate General, requesting change of post, invoking the provisions under para (25) of Annexure A7 Scheme for Compassionate Employment of the Dependents of Government Servants who die-in-Harness, vide G.O.(P)No.12/99/P&ARD dated 24.05.1999, stands rejected; an order directing the 1st respondent State to pass orders appointing the applicant to the post of Assistant Grade II in the office of the Advocate General; a declaration that the revised application made by the applicant for compassionate appointment is liable to be allowed, giving the benefit under Annexure A8 order of the Apex Court dated 10.01.2022 - In Re: Cognizance of Extension of Limitation [(2021) 18 SCC 250]

The applicant was permitted by the order of the Tribunal to amend O.A.(EKM)No.369 of 2023, by incorporating additional statement of facts, reliefs, etc., in order to challenge para (25) of Annexure A7 Scheme to the extent of insisting time limit for submitting request for change of post, under para (19) of the said Scheme, by declaring that it is not proper and legal; and to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider the request made by the applicant, as applied in time, and to grant compassionate appointment, by considering the request for change of post in the available vacancy of Assistant Grade II in the office of the 3rd respondent Advocate General.

In O.A.(EKM)No.369 of 2023, on behalf of the 1st respondent State, Ext.P3 reply statement dated 14.08.2025 was placed on record, opposing the reliefs sought for. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P4 order dated 27.11.2025, dismissed the original application. The reasoning of the Tribunal is contained in paragraph 11 of that order. Paragraph 11 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P4 order read thus;

“11. The applicant has no case that he had submitted application within the time limit prescribed in the Government Order dated 24.05.1999. The applicant, on the other hand, is challenging the above Government Order to the extent it prescribes the time limit. But the applicant has not made out any ground for interfering with the above Clause. As rightly contended by the respondents, the applicants under Compassionate Employment Scheme cannot claim employment as a matter of right. The very object of Compassionate Employment Scheme is to assist the members of the bereaved family to tide over the sudden crisis. The Government as a policy decision, have laid down, three year time limit for applying in the case of minors. The Government permits the applicants to file applications and to change the same in case of acquisition of subsequent qualifications, but the same has to be done within the time limit prescribed. The applicant has not made out any ground to show that the above decision of the Government reflected in Government Order dated 24.05.1.999, is in any way arbitrary or illegal. The applicant has no case that he has resubmitted his application in the time limit prescribed by the said Government Order.

In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the Government decision not to permit the applicant to resubmit his application under Compassionate Employment Scheme. Accordingly, the original application is dismissed.”

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

The issue that requ