AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants in O.A.(Ekm) No.1115 of 2026 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 Ext.P2 interim order dated 06.08.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
The issue involved in the original application is pertaining to the appointment of qualified hands to the post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the Transport Department based on the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service Rules, 2008 (‘Special Rules’ for short) from among the direct recruits and by transfer appointees at the ratio of 1:4, as provided under Sub-rule(2) of Rule 3 of the Special Rules. According to the petitioners-applicants, the ratio is applicable to the current vacancies, and whereas, according to the State and its officials, the ratio has to be applied to the total cadre strength of the posts.
Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioners are included in Annexure A2 ranked list dated 02.09.2024 for the post of AMVIs published by the 3rd respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) in pursuance of the selection process undertaken by it as category No.517 of 2022 in Annexure A1 notification dated 15.12.2022. The petitioners are rank Nos. 316, 273, and 305, respectively, in Annexure A2 ranked list. The petitioners contend that the total cadre strength of the post of AMVIs is 648. However, for want of qualified candidates for by-transfer appointment, many vacancies of AMVIs were filled up by direct recruitment. As per Annexure A9 information received under the Right to Information Act, at present 72 vacancies of AMVIs exist in the department. In accordance with Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Special Rules, which prescribes a ratio of 1:4 between by-transfer appointment and direct recruitment, out of 72 vacancies, 14 vacancies alone will have to be filled by by-transfer appointment, and remaining 58 vacancies will have to be filled up by direct recruitment. Therefore, only 14 vacancies of AMVIs will have to be filled up by by-transfer method, and the remaining 58 vacancies have to be filled up by direct recruitment. But in violation of the above, the 2nd respondent issued Annexure A10 notification dated 16.05.2026, notifying 69 vacancies of AMVIs to be filled up by by-transfer from among the qualified ministerial staff of the department. Therefore, the petitioners filed the original application invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, relying on Rule 3 of the Special Rules and also Note 3 to Rule 5 of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (‘KS&SSR’ for short), seeking the following reliefs;
“a. to call for the records leading to Annexure-A10 and set aside the same to the extent it proposes to fill up 69 vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors by appointment by transfer without complying with the ratio 1:4 laid down between by transfer appointment and direct recruitment laid down in Rule 3(2) of the KS&SSR;
b. to issue a direction to the 2nd respondent to report 58 vacancies out of 69 vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors that has arisen to the Public Service Commission for advice and appointment of candidates from Annexure-A2 ranked list and issue a further direction to the Public Service Commission to advice candidates from Annexure-A2 ranked list to those vacancies;
c. to declare that the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to fill up the 69 vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors that has arisen in the department by appointment by transfer in violation of the ratio of 1 :4 laid down in Rule 3(2) of Annexure-A3 Special Rules and Annexure-A10 is one issued without any authority of law and is therefore void and non-est needless to say the same is unconstitutional, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable and in violation of Article 14. and Article 16 of the Constitution of India;
d. to issue a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the candidates advised by the 3rd 2nd respondent to the vacancies of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors reported to the 3rd respondent by the 2nd respondent from out of the 72 vacancies notified in Annexure-A10 in the ratio of 1 :4.”
In the original application, the petitioners have sought for an interim order to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure A10 notification dated 16.05.2026 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the original application. On 06.08.2026, when the original application came up for admission, the Tribunal passed the following order;
“Admit.
2.Learned Government Pleader takes notice for Respondents 1 and 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission takes notice for Respondent No.3.
3.Recruitment pursuant to Annexure A10 and all proceedings pursuant thereto will be subject to the result of the Original Application”.
Being aggrieved by the non-granting of interim relief as sought in the original application, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition.
Heard Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Ann Maria Francis, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri P.C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argued that the ratio provided in Rule 3 of the Special Rules is applicable to the existing vacancies and not to the total number of posts. However, the respondents are attempting to fill up the entire available vacancies by applying the ratio to the total number of posts, which cannot be compensated later on. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on Annexure A6 judgment of the Apex Court in Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala [(2010) 4 SCC 498], and also the judgments in Tara Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1975) 4 SCC 86], Samurai Electronics Private Ltd v. Municipal Council [(1998) 2 SCC 707], and V.K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil [(2019) 2 SCC 347].
On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that Annexure A6 judgment of the Apex Court relied upon by the petitioners is applicable only if there is a conflict between the General Rules and Special Rules. Since there is no conflict between the General Rules and Special Rules, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745], and also that of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 11.07.2023 in O.P.(KAT)No.260 of 2022 [2023:KER:43283], the learned Government Pleader argued that the ratio prescribed in the Special Rules is applicable to the total cadre strength. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out the interim order dated 03.02.2026 in O.A.No.142 of 2026 passed by the Tribunal, which was one filed pointing out the grievance that there is dearth of a large number of by-transfer appointees of AMVIs in the quota for by-transfer appointments. By that interim order, the Tribunal directed to fill up two vacancies that arose in January 2026 by promotion of two persons appointed through by transfer by adopting by transfer appointment, if there is a dearth of AMVIs in the quota for by transfer appointment.
The learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that only if the Special Rules do not specifically state how the ratio has to be applied, the General Rules will apply. The learned Standing Counsel relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Deepa Kaviraj v. Muhammed Anwar V.P.M. [2020 (2) KLT 1] in support of his submission.
As per the impugned Ext.P2 order dated 06.08.2026, the Tribunal granted an interim order in favour of the petitioners to the effect that recruitment pursuant to Annexure A10 and all proceedings pursuant thereto will be subject to the result of the Original Application. The point to be considered in this original petition is whether the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to hold this interim order as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?
Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
"The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."
In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
As already noticed above, the issue between the parties herein is based on Rule 3 of the Special Rules pertaining to the ratio of appointment of AMVIs in the Kerala Transport Subordinate Service. When the petitioners contend that the ratio has to be applied to the vacancies that arose at the relevant period, the State and its officials contend that it has to be applied to the entire cadre strength.
Though the parties to this original petition have relied on various judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court, which are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, to substantiate their rival contentions as to how the ratio has to be applied, those are matters yet to be considered and decided by the Tribunal in the original application. From the materials in the original petition, we notice that the contesting respondents are yet to file their reply statements before the Tribunal. Before giving an opportunity to the respondents to put forward their contentions in the original application, it is not proper to decide the rival contentions of the parties on the issue mentioned above, by this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction. Apart from that, it is also relevant to note that another original application that is O.A.No.142 of 2026 is also pending before the Tribunal on the very same subject matter, wherein the Tribunal had granted an interim order on 03.02.2026, as mentioned above. Therefore, we are not inclined to consider the merits of the rival contentions raised by the parties on the issue that has to be considered by the Tribunal in the original application.
While coming to the impugned Ext.P2 order, we notice that the Tribunal on the admission date of the original application itself protected the interest of the petitioners by holding that recruitment pursuant to Annexure A10 and all proceedings pursuant thereto will be subject to the result of the original application. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties on merits by the Tribunal, after the filing of the reply statement by the contesting respondents, we find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. The parties can raise all their contentions before the Tribunal expeditiously, so as to facilitate the Tribunal to pass an order on merits in the original application itself.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, this original petition stands dismissed; however, directing the respondents to file their reply statements, if any, in the original application, before the Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the reply statements have not been filed till date. After the filing of the reply statement by the respondents, the petitioners can move the Tribunal for an early hearing of the original application itself or for any other subsequent interim orders, if found necessary, by filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal pointing out the urgency.
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 246 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE P.S.C. IN THE GAZETTE DATED 15.12.2022, CAT. NO. 517/2022.
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RANKED LIST NO. 949/2024/SSVI, CAT. NO. 517/2022 BROUGHT INTO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM 02.09.2024.
ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES ISSUED AS PER G.O.(P) NO. 16/2008/TRAN. DATED 07.04.2008.
ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO. 36/2018/TRANS DATED 03.11.2018 AMENDING THE SPECIAL RULES.
ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ABOVE ORDER G.O.(P) NO. 28/2022/TRANS DATED 01.10.2022 AMENDING THE SPECIAL RULES.
ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN (2010) 4 SCC 498 (MAYA MATHEW V. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS).
ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER NO. A4/14/2026-TC DATED 18.07.2026 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL. SUBMITTED BY ALEN BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 14.07.2026 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. A3/60/2021-TC DATED 16.05.2026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 1115/2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,(ADDL.BENCH AT ERNAKULAM) DATED 04.08.2026.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2026 IN O.A. (EKM.) NO.1115/2026 OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL.