Sooraj C.T. vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A3 order of transfer dated 18.07.2026 issued by the 2^nd respondent Joint Director, Local Self Government Department, to the extent the applicant, who is working as Lower Division Clerk (LD Clerk) at Mukkam Municipality, is transferred to Karassery Grama Panchayat; and an order directing the 2^nd respondent Joint Director to retain the applicant as LD Clerk at Mukkam Municipality.

The applicant, who entered in service as Office Attendant in Koodaranjhi Grama Panchayat, was transferred to Mukkam Municipality on 18.09.2023, and he was promoted as LD Clerk on 28.07.2025. While working as Section Clerk in G5 Section of Mukkam Municipality, the applicant has been entrusted with the census work handled by G1 Section, by Annexure A1 order dated 03.03.2026 issued by the 3^rd respondent, who is the Secretary of that Municipality.

The Home Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide a demi-official letter, i.e., D.O. letter No.9/12/ 2026-CG(Cen) dated 11.03.2026 has directed that the officers deployed for census duties, being engaged in statutory functions under the Census Act, 1948 and the Census Rules, 1990, shall not be transferred or shifted during the period of census operations up to 31^st March 2027. Based on the said D.O. letter, the 1^st respondent State has ordered that the census functionaries appointed at the State, District, Tehsil and Enumeration Block levels for Census 2027 shall not be transferred or shifted during the census operations. They shall be retained in their respective positions up to 31.03.2027, in view of the statutory nature and national importance of the census work. Therefore, by Annexure A2 Government order, i.e., G.O.(Ms.)No.44/2026/GAD dated 27.03.2026, all departments and field authorities are directed to strictly comply with the above instructions and to avoid transfers of such officers until the stipulated date, except with the prior approval of the competent authority.

The grievance of the petitioner in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026 was that despite the absolute embargo in Annexure A2 Government order, the 2^nd respondent Joint Director issued Annexure A3 order dated 18.07.2026, whereby he is ordered to be transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, on administrative exigencies, and the 4^th respondent, who is working in the office of the 2^nd respondent Joint Director, is transferred to Mukkam Municipality, to occupy the post held by the applicant. Annexure A3 order of transfer, to the extent the applicant is ordered to be transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, was under challenge in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026.

On 20.07.2026, when O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026 came up for admission, the Tribunal dismissed the same by Ext.P1 order, declining interference on Annexure A3 transfer order, to the extent the applicant is ordered to be transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, since the applicant is transferred to a station within 4 Kms. from the present station, after nearly 3 years in the present station. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with Annexure A3 transfer order.

Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 20.07.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026, the applicant-petitioner is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order dated 20.07.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that, by Annexure A3 order of transfer, the applicant has been transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, despite the absolute embargo in Annexure A2 Government order that the census functionaries appointed at the State, District, Tehsil and Enumeration Block levels for Census 2027 shall not be transferred or shifted during the census operations. The applicant, who has been designated as Enumerator by Annexure A1 order dated 03.03.2026 of the 3^rd respondent Secretary, Mukkam Municipality, to deal with the census work handled by G1 Section, is legally entitled to be retained in that position up to 31.03.2027, in view of the statutory nature and national importance of the census work. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a grave error in declining interference on Annexure A3 order of transfer.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner-applicant, who has been entrusted with the census work handled by G1 Section, by Annexure A1 order dated 03.03.2026 of the 3^rd respondent Secretary of Mukkam Municipality, will not fall under the category of census functionaries referred to in Annexure A2 Government order dated 27.03.2026, appointed at the State, District, Tehsil and Enumeration Block levels for Census 2027, who are not liable to be transferred or shifted during the census operations, i.e., up to 31.03.2027, except with the prior approval of the competent authority. The applicant, who has been entrusted with the census work handled by G1 Section, will not fall under the category ‘Enumerator’ in the Table below Rule 3 of the Census Rules, 1990. Therefore, no interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order dated 20.07.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026, whereby interference was declined on Annexure A3 order of transfer, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 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 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 the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative 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 Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the 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.

The Census Act, 1948, is enacted by the Parliament to provide for certain matters in connection with the taking of census in India or any part thereof, whenever necessary or desirable, and to provide for certain matters in connection with the taking of such census. As per Section 3 of the Census Act, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare its intention of taking a census in the whole or any part of the territories to which the said Act extends, whenever it may consider it necessary or desirable so to do and thereupon the census shall be taken.

Section 4 of the Census Act deals with the appointment of census staff. As per sub-section (2) of Section 4, the State Government may appoint persons as census-officers with such designations as that Government may deem necessary to take, or aid in, or supervise the taking of, the census within any specified local area and such persons, when so appointed, shall be bound to serve accordingly. As per sub-section (4) of Section 4, the State Government may delegate to such authority as it thinks fit the power of appointing census-officers conferred by sub-section (2). Section 4 of the Act reads thus;

As per Section 4A of the Census Act, every local authority in a State shall, when so directed by a written order by the Central Government or by an authority appointed by that Government in this behalf, make available to any Director of Census Operations such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with the taking of census. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Census Act empowers the Central Government to make rules, by notification in the Official Gazette, for carrying out the purposes of the said Act.

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Census Act, the Central Government made the Census Rules, 1990. Clause (g) of Rule 2 defines ‘Enumerator’ to mean an officer appointed under sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Census Act. Rule 3 of the Census Rules deals with the appointment of census officers. As per Rule 3, the State Governments and the Union territory Administrations, in order to aid the taking of the census within their States or Union territories, may appoint officers from against the category mentioned in column 2 as census officers within their jurisdictions with such designation mentioned in column 1 of the Table below the said Rule. Rule 3 reads thus;

In view of the provisions under Rule 3 of the Census Rules, the appointment of ‘Enumerators’ by the State Governments and the Union territory Administrations, in order to aid the taking of the census within their States or Union territories, shall be made by appointing persons out of or from the category or group of officers in column 2 of the table below Rule 3, i.e., Teachers, Clerks or any official or any person.

Rule 5 of the Census Rules deals with the functions of the census officers, namely, the Census Commissioner, the Director of Census Operations, the Principal Census Officer, the District/Additional District or Sub-Divisional Census Officer, the Charge Officer, the Supervisor and the Enumerator. Rule 5(7) of the Census Rules deals with the functions of the Enumerator. Rule 5(7) reads thus;

A reading of the provisions under Rule 5(7) of the Census Rules would make it explicitly clear that ‘Enumerator’ is a census officer, who is appointed to prepare Notional Map and layout sketch of the allotted enumeration block; update the house numbering; fill up the various schedules according to instructions issued to him; and undertake revisional round and updating of records; prepare enumerator’s abstract which shall consist of the location particulars of the enumeration block along with the total population by various characteristics asked for in the schedules and such other statements he may be required to compile; who has to hand over all documents, filled in and blank, to the Supervisors.

The petitioner-applicant, who has been entrusted with the census work handled by G1 Section of Mukkam Municipality, by Annexure A1 order dated 03.03.2026 of the 3^rd respondent Secretary of that Municipality, is not an ‘Enumerator’ as defined in clause (g) of Rule 2 of the Census Rules. His functions as a Section Clerk in relation to the census work handled by G1 Section of Mukkam Municipality are not those of an ‘Enumerator’, as provided in Rule 5(7) of the Census Rules. Therefore, the petitioner-applicant is not a person who functions as a ‘census officer’, deployed for census duties under the Census Act and the Census Rules, in order to claim the protection from transfer or shifting during the census operations, i.e., up to 31.03.2027, except with the prior approval of the competent authority.

In the above circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the contention of the petitioner-applicant that he has been transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, by Annexure A3 order of the 2^nd respondent Joint Director, despite the absolute embargo contained in Annexure A2 Government order against the transfer or shifting of census functionaries appointed at the State, District, Tehsil and Enumeration Block levels for Census 2027, during the census operations.

As already noticed hereinbefore, by Ext.P1 order dated 20.07.2026, the Tribunal dismissed O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026, declining interference on Annexure A3 transfer order, to the extent the applicant is ordered to be transferred from Mukkam Municipality to Karassery Grama Panchayat, since the applicant is transferred to a station within 4 Kms. from the present station, after nearly 3 years in the present station. In the said order, the Tribunal did not advert to the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant with reference to the provisions contained in the Census Act and the Census Rules. In view of the finding of this Court at paragraph 23 that petitioner-applicant is not a person who functions as a ‘census officer’, deployed for census duties under the Census Act and the Census Rules, in order to claim the protection from transfer or shifting during the census operations, the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought for in O.A.(EKM)No.990 of 2026 to set aside Annexure A3 transfer order. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal in dismissing that original application by declining the reliefs sought for.

In the result, this original petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2026 IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 990/2026 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. (EKM) NO. 990/2026 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES PRODUCED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL