Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S declined to interfere with the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order upholding the transfer of a High School Assistant (English). Stressing the limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court held that such powers are not meant to correct every alleged error of the Tribunal but are reserved for instances of manifest illegality, gross injustice, or flagrant abuse of law. Finding none of these present, the Bench dismissed the teacher’s challenge to staff fixation orders under the Kerala Education Rules

The petitioner, Shiny S. Raj, employed as a High School Assistant (English), challenged an order dated 20 June 2025 issued by the Deputy Director of Education, Pathanamthitta, transferring her from Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Adoor, to Government High School, Thengamam. She argued that the transfer violated Rules 3(iiA)(j), 4(ii), and 6-I of Chapter XXIII of the Kerala Education Rules and conflicted with earlier judgments of the High Court.

Also Read: Second Special Leave Petition Not Maintainable If First Was Withdrawn Unconditionally | Supreme Court

Before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner sought interim relief to continue at the Adoor school. On 2 July 2025, the Tribunal admitted the application but declined to grant interim relief. It noted that the petitioner had been allowed to remain at Adoor despite the loss of an HST (English) post in the 2023–24 staff fixation and that she was now posted to Thengamam, where a permanent vacancy had arisen following a promotion.

Dissatisfied, the petitioner invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the Tribunal’s refusal. During the pendency of this petition, she produced a subsequent staff fixation order dated 25 July 2025 for Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Adoor, which temporarily sanctioned a post of HST (English) on a daily wage basis. Through an interlocutory application, she requested to be repatriated to that school with consequential benefits, instead of filling the post on daily wages.

The respondents, including the State of Kerala, the Director of General Education, the Deputy Director of Education, and the District Educational Officer, contended that the transfer was valid. They relied on successive staff fixation orders showing the loss of a sanctioned HST (English) post at Adoor, while highlighting the availability of a permanent vacancy at Thengamam.

The Courtstated: “Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with 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.”

Referring to precedents, the Bench quoted from Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil, noting 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.”

It further relied on Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi to state that “the High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that [subordinate courts and tribunals] act in accordance with the well established principles of law… 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.” Similarly, citing K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, the Court reaffirmed that intervention is permissible only where there is “patent perversity… gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.”

The Bench cited the Kerala High Court’s own judgement in Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair, which held that “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… is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.”

The Bench recorded: “In the instant case… the Tribunal has stated valid reasons in Ext.P1 order dated 02.07.2025 to decline the interim relief sought… The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal and it cannot also be said that the Tribunal has committed any manifest error.”

It observed: “In exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227… the applicant before the Tribunal cannot expand the scope of the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Therefore, in this original petition… the petitioner-applicant cannot raise a challenge against the condition stipulated in Appendix–II of Ext.P7 staff fixation order dated 25.07.2025… to make appointment on daily wage basis.”

The Court referred to the judgement in Sadhiq M.M. v. State of Kerala and the Constitution Bench judgment in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, noting that tribunals are courts of first instance in service matters, and litigants must ordinarily approach them before invoking High Court jurisdiction.

The High Court dismissed the original petition, holding: “In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra… no interference is warranted on Ext.P1 order dated 02.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.1156 of 2025, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court: University’s Authority To Prescribe Minimum Standards Cannot Be Questioned in Writ Petition | College Plea for New Paramedical Courses Dismissed

“In such circumstances, conclusion is irresistible that the petitioner-applicant cannot seek any relief in this original petition, in respect of Ext.P7 staff fixation order dated 25.07.2025… By filing such an interlocutory application in this original petition filed under Article 227… the petitioner… cannot be permitted to expand the scope of that original application filed before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.”

“The challenge made in this original petition against Ext.P1 order dated 02.07.2025 in O.A.No.1156 of 2025 fails and this original petition is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner-applicant to challenge the condition stipulated in Appendix–II of Ext.P7 staff fixation order dated 25.07.2025 for the year 2025-26, before the appropriate forum.”

Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Smt. K.R. Krishnakumari, Advocate; Smt. Shreepriya C.J., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. A. J. Varghese, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Shiny S. Raj v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:65946
Case Number: O.P.(KAT) No. 311 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S.