Kerala High Court
R.Sivakumar vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
1
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2026 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 149 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2024 IN OA EKM NO.485 OF 2017 OF
THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDIITONAL BENCH AT ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER
R.SIVAKUMAR
AGED 53 YEARS
SUB INSPECTOR, NEMOM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695020, NOW WORKING AS DETECTIVE
INSPECTOR, CRIME BRANCH, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING,
KOTTAYAM AND IDUKKI UNIT, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM-
686121, RESIDENT OF RAJA BHAVAN, VENCODE, CHERIYAKOLLA
PO, KARAKONAM VIA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695504
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.D.JAYAKRISHNAN
SHRI VIJAYKRISHNAN S. MENON
SHRI.VIVEK NAIR P.
SHRI.K.S.ARAVIND
SHRI.M.R.RADHAKRISHNAN
SHRI.G.GOWARDHAN DEV G. NAIR
SMT.GARGI RAMACHANDRAN
SMT.NADIYA K.M.
SHRI.SHIBU S.
SHRI.SONE SALIM
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
2
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF
KERALA POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM
PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR, SR.GP
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
13.07.2027, THE COURT ON 03.08.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
3
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A. (EKM)No.485 of 2017 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.P1 order dated 18.11.2024
passed by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the averments in the original application, the
petitioner was placed as Rank No.64 in Annexure A1 ranked list
dated 19.08.2006 for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (General
Executive Branch) (Trainee), in the Police Department published
by the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short). He
belongs to Other Backward Community (OBC) (Hindu Nadar). In
Annexure A1 ranked list, one Jiji.D.V was placed as Rank No. 52,
and he also belongs to the category of OBC. He had relinquished
his claim for advice and appointment. From Annexure A5
information collected under the Information Act, from the PSC, it
is understood that, even though the above Jiji.D.V had
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
4
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
relinquished his claim, he was advised by the PSC as per advice
dated 25.10.2016, vide Serial No.26. The petitioner should have
been advised in the place of the above Jiji. But the petitioner was
advised only in the next OBC turn as per the advice memo dated
09.01.2007. The stand taken by the PSC is highly arbitrary, unjust
and illegal. To rectify the above mistake committed by the PSC,
the petitioner submitted several representations before the
Secretary of PSC, as evidenced in Annexures A2 and A4
representations dated 17.11.2006 and 18.08.2010, with copy to
the Director General of Police. But no action is seen to have been
taken on his representations. Annexure A9 representation dated
21.12.2016 of the petitioner in this regard is pending before the
1st respondent. The inaction on the part of the respondents is
highly unjust. With these pleadings, the petitioner approached the
Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief;
“(i) An order directing the 3rd respondent to modify the
advice issued to the applicant and place him in the OBC turn
in which advice was issued to the 52nd rank holder in
Annexure A1, Jiji.D.V, who had relinquished his claim for
CNR : KLHC0103216220262026:KER:58061
5
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026advice and appointment.
(ii) An order directing the 1st respondent to consider and
pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P9 representation of the
applicant immediately.”
3. On 18.11.2024, when the original application came up
for consideration, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext. P1 order
dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 2 and 3 and the last
paragraph of that order read thus;
“2. After a period of about 9 years the applicant approached
the first respondent in Annexure A9 representation dated
21.12.2016 seeking for invocation of Rule 39 of Part 11 KS
& SSR for issuing orders to modify the date of advice and to
re-assign his seniority and promotions. Through this
Original Application, the applicant is seeking direction to the
1st respondent to consider Annexure A9.
3. The Original Application was filed as early as in the year
2017. The case was not seen moved for posting for quite a
long time after it came up for admission on 07.03.2017.
When it is posted for disposal on today, counsel for the
applicant prayed for a direction to the 1st respondent to
consider and to take appropriate decision on Annexure A9.
This Tribunal is not persuaded to grant any relief in this
regard, since the applicant has not pursued the matter
before the PSC itself after he was advised during the year
2007. It is only after 9 years that he is approaching the
Government for invocation of Rule 39, to re-assign his
CNR : KLHC0103216220262026:KER:58061
6
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026seniority by correcting the effective date of advice, which
the Government may not be possible to do. Moreover, the
inordinate delay caused in this respect will defeat the issue.
Moreover the consideration of Annexure A9 at this point of
time will seriously affect so many others, who are not made
parties in this Original Application.
Under such circumstances, the Original Application deserves
no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.”
4. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original
application, the petitioner is now before this Court with the original
petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner by relying on the judgment of a Division Bench
of this Court wherein one among us (Anil K. Narendran, J.) was a
party, in Radhika T. (Dr.) v. Cochin University of Science and
Technology [2023 (5) KHC 45], argued that since the person
placed at rank No.52 in Annexure A1 ranked list submitted valid
relinquishment as evident from Annexure A5 document, the PSC
ought to have advised the petitioner who is the next candidate in
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
7
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
the list in the same reservation quota.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that the petitioner was advised as per Annexure
A3 advice memo dated 09.01.2007 and after a long period of 9
years, he approached the 1st respondent with Annexure A9
representation dated 21.12.2016. The original application was
filed in the year 2017. Therefore, treating the claim of the
petitioner as a stale claim, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the
original application.
8. 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.
9. 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
CNR : KLHC0103216220262026:KER:58061
8
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026duty 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.”
10. 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
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
9
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
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.
11. 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
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
10
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
11
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
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.
14. 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
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
12
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
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.
15. In paragraph 20 of the judgment in Radhika T. (Dr.)
[2023 (5) KHC 45] this Court held thus;
“20. In Shanavas S.R. v. Kerala Public Service
Commission and others [2008 (3) KHC 769], another
decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant,
in the context of R.18(ii) of the Kerala Public Service
Commission Rules of Procedure, 1976, which deals with the
relinquishment of the claim for appointment by a candidate
included in the ranked list published by the Public Service
Commission, a learned Single Judge held that R.18(ii) of
the Rules of Procedure enables a person, whose name is
included in the ranked list to relinquish his claim for
appointment in writing. But, such relinquishment in writing
should be effected before the date of receipt of requisition
for advice by the Commission. In such cases, the
relinquishment will be treated as valid and the name of the
person, who has relinquished his claim will be deleted from
the ranked list. In such circumstances, the Commission
gets the authority to issue advice memo to another
candidate for appointment. The learned Single Judge
noticed that, where there is a valid relinquishment, there
are two consequences emanating therefrom. First, the
CNR : KLHC0103216220262026:KER:58061
13
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026Commission shall accept the relinquishment and delete the
name of the person from the ranked list. There is yet
another consequence provided by the act of relinquishment
on acceptance of a valid relinquishment from the
incumbent. There is an obligation on the part of the
Commission to advise another candidate in that place. No
doubt, to a limited extent, this obligation on the part of the
Commission to advise another candidate, according to the
Rules, as a consequence of a valid relinquishment, cannot
be brushed aside. R.14 of the Rules of Procedure makes it
clear that vacancies which arise during the currency of the
ranked list will have to be reported to the Commission to
be filled up by operation of the rank list in question. Once
there is a valid relinquishment, then the name of the person
who has relinquished his claim should stand deleted from
the ranked list and the Commission is obliged to operate
the ranked list further, in accordance with the Rules. In
cases where the relinquishment is by a candidate who has
been included in the list in the reservation quota, the next
candidate in the list from the same reservation quota will
therefore, have, at least, a right to expect the Commission
to act under R.18(ii) of the Rules of Procedure to advise the
candidates in accordance with the Rules”.
16. At the same time, from the pleadings in the original
application as well as from the materials placed on record, we
notice that the petitioner was advised from Annexure A1 ranked
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
14
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
list as per Annexure A3 advice memo dated 09.01.2007. He
approached the 1st respondent with his claim that he ought to have
been advised at the place of the 52nd rank holder since that person
relinquished the claim, as evident from Annexure A5 information
obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, only
after 9 years, that is, on 21.12.2016. The original application was
filed by the petitioner in the year 2017.
17. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of
the Apex Court in Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha [(2025)
SCC Online SC 916], wherein it was held thus:
“35. We hold that except in cases where final orders are
passed on appeals/revisions/memorials/representations
which are statutorily provided, limitation for the purpose of
filing an original application under Section 19 of the 1985
Act, in view of the above – referred decisions and Section
21 and Section 20 thereof, has to be reckoned keeping in
mind the date of accrual of the cause of action and the
proximity of the date of the representation, and the period
of one year for filing an original application has to be
counted from the date of expiry of six months from date of
such a representation if no order were passed thereon.
Needless to observe, the cause of action cannot be deferred
by making a highly belated representation and awaiting its
CNR : KLHC0103216220262026:KER:58061
15
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026outcome. We also make it clear that different considerations
would arise in a case of a continuous wrong, which has to
be decided in the light of the decision of this Court in Union
of India v. Tarsem Singh [2008 INSC 930 : (2008) 8 SCC
648]”. (underline supplied)
18. In view of the principles stated in the aforementioned
judgment, we find no illegality in the finding of the Tribunal that
the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and is a stale claim.
Therefore, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order
of the Tribunal.
19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the
judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to hold that the
impugned Ext. P1 order of the Tribunal is perverse or patently
illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory
jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
CNR : KLHC010321622026
2026:KER:58061
16
OP(KAT)No.149 of 2026
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 149 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST TO 3RD PAGES OF RANKED
LIST DATED 19.8.2006 FOR THE POST OF SUB
INSPECTOR OF POLICE (GENERAL EXECUTIVE
BRANCH) (TRAINEE) IN POLICE DEPARTMENT
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 17.11.2006
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE DATED 09.01.2007
ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18.8.2010
FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONS DATED 19.11.2015 AND
ANSWERS DATED 8.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF QUESTION UNDER INFORMATION ACT
SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONS DATED 01.01.2016 AND
INFORMATION DATED 28.01.2016 FROM THE STATE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF KERALA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.02.2017
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, TO THE
CONCERNED OFFICIALS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE
THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED
18.11.2024 IN OA EKM 485/2017 THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF OA EKM 485/2017FILED BY THE
ORIGINAL PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH AT
ERNAKULAM
