Under Article 227, the High Court exercises limited supervisory jurisdiction and cannot act as an appellate court. Interference is restricted to cases of patent perversity, manifest error, or flagrant violation of law, particularly when the petitioner has previously acquiesced to the findings of the subordinate tribunal.

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.576 of 2016 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P9 order dated 01.04.2022 in that original application and Ext.P14 order dated 23.07.2024 in M.A.(EKM) No.1656 of 2022 filed in that original application, passed by the Tribunal.

The petitioner had applied for the post of Treatment Organiser Grade II in the Health Services Department, Kottayam, pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 30.04.2011 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short) and was included in Annexure A2 ranked list dated 29.07.2015 as rank No.1 under the supplementary list of OBC candidates. Contending that despite the existence of two vacancies of Treatment Organiser Grade II, those vacancies were not filled up from Annexure A2 ranked list and instead those two vacancies were filled up by inter-district transfer of respondents 6 and 7, the petitioner filed O.A.(EKM)No.576 of 2016 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

i) To direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents to report all the substantive vacancies in the post of Treatment Organizer Grade II including the vacancies occupied by the respondents 6 and 7 to the 5th respondent before the expiry of the ranked list;

ii) To direct the 5th respondent to issue advice memos for the said vacancies reported by the respondents 2 and 3;

iii) To direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicant to the post of Treatment Organiser Grade II in Kottayam district or nearby.

The respondents 2 to 4 and 7 filed Exts.P2 to P5 reply statements and additional reply statements in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing Annexures R2(a) to R2(d) documents. As per the reply statements filed by respondents 2 and 3, the total sanctioned strength of Treatment Organiser Grade II in Kottayam District is six. The 2nd respondent Director of Health Services, reported four vacancies of Treatment Organiser Grade II, and the PSC issued advice with respect to those four vacancies. However, only two candidates joined service, and therefore, the remaining two vacancies were reported to the PSC as NJD. To the aforementioned two NJD vacancies, inter-district transfer was given to respondents 6 and 7, on their request, before 30.03.2012. Thereafter, another candidate who joined duty also left the job, and that vacancy was reported to the PSC, to which advice was given by the PSC on 31.10.2016, and an appointment order was issued on 17.12.2016. The 6th respondent, who got the inter-district appointment, retired from service on 31.05.2018, and that vacancy was reported to the PSC on 16.06.2018. Against the said vacancy, PSC had advised one Sri.Muhammed Shafeek for appointment on 29.06.2018. However, said Muhammed Shafeek did not join duty and the NJD vacancy was reported on 01.11.2018. Therefore, the 7th respondent alone was working in the department having got inter-district appointment.

Respondents 4 and 5 filed Ext.P6 reply statement dated 22.05.2017 and Ext.P7 additional reply statement dated 27.05.2020, contending that the DMO, Kottayam, on 07.01.2016, informed the PSC that the two vacancies of Treatment Organiser Grade II in Kottayam District were filled by inter-district transfer as per the order dated 30.03.2012. The one available vacancy was not reported to the PSC in the prescribed proforma and there is no illegality on the part of the PSC.

The 7th respondent filed Ext.P8 reply statement dated 09.09.2021, supporting his inter-district appointment and producing Annexures R7(a) to R7(c) documents in support of his contentions.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, on 01.04.2022, the Tribunal passed Ext.P9 order in O.A.(EKM) No.576 of 2016. Paragraphs 9