Joy R vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 19 November, 2025

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Joy R vs State Of Kerala Represented By Its ... on 19 November, 2025

The 2nd applicant in O.A. No. 610 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the 'Tribunal' in short), filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P5 order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner, along with one Biju Narayanan, who is the 1st applicant in O.A.No.610 of 2025, approached the Tribunal aggrieved by their reversion to the cadre of Head Surveyor from the post of Survey Superintendent. According to the petitioner, he joined the service in 1996 and was granted promotion from time to time. He was promoted as Survey Superintendent as per Annexure A1 order dated 23.12.2020 of the 2nd respondent, Director of Survey and Land Records. Now the 2nd respondent issued Annexure A2 order dated 09.04.2025, reverting the petitioner to the cadre of Head Surveyor. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 4 2025:KER:87950 Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A2 reversion order dated 09.04.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, he passed the account test, revenue test and 1st grade surveyor test. He does not come under the category of persons who should pass the departmental test before promotion to a higher post. He got promotion to the present cadre after attaining the age of 50 years.

3. In the original application, a reply statement dated 11.06.2025 was filed by the 2nd respondent. In that reply statement, the 2nd respondent contended that all the tests to which the petitioner sought for exemption are prescribed as qualifications as per Rule 3 of the Kerala Survey and Land Records State Service Rules (the 'Special Rules' in short) issued as per G.O.(MS)446/PD dated 13.04.1959 and G.O.(P)No.510/82/PD dated 24.04.1982. The petitioner has already availed two promotions from the entry cadre, such as First Grade Surveyor and Head Surveyor, without test qualification. Even if he has completed more than 25 years of service in the department, he has not passed the basic elementary tests. As per Rule 2 of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 ('KS&SSR' O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 5 2025:KER:87950 in short), if any provision in the General Rules contained in the part is repugnant in the provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the later shall, in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the General rules in this part. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get promotion as per Rule 13B of KS&SSR. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that after the provisional promotion order dated 30.12.2020 of the petitioner, the Kerala Public Service Commission conducted the elementary departmental test more than six times since 2021, such as Revenue Test and Account Test. The details of the exam notification and the publication of the results are furnished in the reply statement. Since the Head Surveyor test is a special test, the Kerala Public Service Commission does not conduct the said test twice in a year. During this period, Head Surveyor Test was conducted once in October 2022, and the result was published on 19.12.2023. The petitioner, even after getting six chances to qualify for the mandatory departmental tests like the Revenue test and the Account test, couldn't get through them. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable.

O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 6

2025:KER:87950

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P5 order, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 5 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

"5. It is stated that the first applicant has already retired from service. However, it is seen that the applicants did not pass the tests which were conducted. The mere ground that Head Surveyor Test was conducted only once after their promotion cannot be a reason for granting any exemption to the applicants when they did not acquire the other test qualifications. The order of promotion, Annexure A1 itself provides for reversion of the applicants also once they do not acquire the prescribed test qualifications within a period of three years from the date of promotion order. All the test qualifications including pass in Revenue Test and Account Test (Lower) are qualifications for the post as per the Special Rules. The contention of the applicants that they are eligible for exemption under Rule 13AA or Rule 13B or under any other rules cannot be accepted as the applicants who commenced service in the years 1993 and 1996, are not entitled to any exemption as provided in those provisions. The reversion ordered in Annexure A2 is perfectly in tune with Rule 13 A(2) of Part II KS & SSR and in tune with the conditions stipulated in Annexure A1 order. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The Original Application fails, and it is accordingly dismissed."

5. Being aggrieved by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is now O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 7 2025:KER:87950 before this Court with this original petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner passed the Account test and Revenue tests in the year 2012 and 2013, respectively and evidencing the same, he has produced Exts.P8 and P9 mark lists before this Court along with I.A.No.02 of 2025. The learned counsel further submitted that even if it is taken for argument's sake that the petitioner has not passed the Account test and Revenue test, he is entitled to exemption under the provisions of KS&SSR from passing these obligatory tests. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal failed to consider these aspects while dismissing the original application.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner cannot claim exemption from passing the basic elementary tests, which are mandatory as per the Special Rules, to get the promotion. By pointing out the relevant provisions in the Special Rules, the learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that for claiming a pass in the O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 8 2025:KER:87950 Account test, the petitioner had to clear four papers, such as Kerala Service Rules (Paper I), Kerala Financial Code (Paper II), Introduction to the Indian Govt. Accounts and Audit (Paper II), and the Kerala Treasury Code (Paper IV). Similarly, to claim a pass in the Revenue test (New Syllabus), the petitioner had to clear the papers on Revenue test (Paper I), Revenue test (Paper II), Revenue test (Paper III) and Unified Village Manual (Paper IV). The petitioner did not pass these tests, and hence, there is no illegality in Annexure A2 reversion order passed by the 2 nd respondent.

9. 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.

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 O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 9 2025:KER:87950 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 within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 10 2025:KER:87950 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. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 11 2025:KER:87950 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 court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 12 2025:KER:87950 or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

15. The petitioner herein raises twofold contentions in the original petition. The first contention is that he cleared the basic elementary test, such as the Account test (Lower) and the Revenue test (New Syllabus) and hence qualified for promotion. The second contention is that even if it is taken that he has not passed this elementary test, he is entitled to exemption under Rule 13 B of Part II of KS&SSR.

16. Though the petitioner has produced Exts.P8 and P9 mark lists of July 2012 and 2013, respectively, claiming that he passed the Account test and Revenue test, the perusal of those documents shows that the petitioner passed the Account test (Lower), Kerala Financial Code (Paper II) alone in Ext.P8 mark list and Revenue test (New Syllabus) and Revenue test (Paper I) alone in Ext.P9 mark list. As per the Special Rules, the copy which is produced by the learned Senior Government Pleader for our perusal, in order to say that the petitioner passed Account test (Lower) and the Revenue test (New Syllabus), he has to clear four subjects in each of those disciplines. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Exts.P8 and P9 mark lists and claim O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 13 2025:KER:87950 that he acquired the qualification of the elementary test.

17. Now, coming to the claim of the petitioner regarding his entitlement for exemption, as contended in the reply statement filed by the 2nd respondent, Rule 2 of Part II of KS&SSR says that if any provision in the General Rules contained in the part is repugnant to the provision in the Special Rules applicable to any particular service contained in Part III, the latter shall, in respect of that service, prevail over the provision in the General rules in that part. Since the Special Rules, which came into effect subsequently, stipulate the pass in the Account test and Revenue test and also the Head Surveyor Test for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Survey and Land Records (SSLR), the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Rule 13B of Part II of KS&SSR. The perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has correctly analysed these aspects and arrived at the right conclusion.

18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the impugned order is perverse or illegal, which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising the O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 14 2025:KER:87950 supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE MSA O.P.(KAT)No.408 of 2025 15 2025:KER:87950 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 408/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

DSLR/3260/2020-G4 DATED 23.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANTS Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

DSLR/257/2024-G4 DATED 09.04.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANTS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA(EKM) NO.610/2025 WITH ANNEXURES DATED 11.04.2025 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.205 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

DSLR/1262/2020-G3 DATED 02.06.2020 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. DSLR/651/2022-G4 DATED 16.05.2022 Exhibit P5 . A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O A (EKM) NO.610/2025 DATED 14.08.2025 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION DATED 03.10.2025 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

                          DSLR/257/2024-G4 DATED 04.10.2025 ALONG
                          WITH TYPED COPY
Exhibit P8                A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF
                          DEPARTMENTAL TEST CONDUCT ON JULY 2012
Exhibit P9                A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF
                          DEPARTMENTAL TEST CONDUCT ON JULY 2013
Exhibit P10               A TRUE COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRE DATED
                          29.08.2025
Exhibit P11               A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER RTI

NO.DSALR/3591/2025-SC1 DATED 23.10.2025

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court