Jayakumar T.R vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Jayakumar T.R vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2026

The applicant in O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025 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.P3 order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

"(i) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to stall all the further proceedings on Annexure-

A14 File No.L3/152/2024/H.Edn. of the 1st respondent forthwith;

(ii) to issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to convene DPC(L) based on the C.R. submission of the applicant as per Annexure-A1 circular No. EGI/49055/ 23/D.T.E. dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent and promote the applicant as Instructor Grade-I forthwith;

(iii) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to finalize Annexure-A9 File No. L2/6/2016 H.Edn. and issue the amended special rule forthwith;

(iv) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1 st 2026:KER:9856 3 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 respondent to create 292 posts for non-teaching technical staffs for the smooth functioning of B.Tech. Labs in Government Engineering Colleges due to the scarcity of staffs as per Annexure-A8 detailed study report includes General Recommendations constituted by the Department of Administrative Reforms (A.R.2);

(v) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1 st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on Annexure-A11 representation submitted by the applicant after affording an opportunity of hearing"

3. Going by the pleadings in the original petition, the petitioner has filed O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025, seeking to stall further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A14 File No.L3/152/2024/H.Edn. and to direct the 1st respondent to convene DPC(L) based on Annexure-A1 Circular dated 27.06.2024 for by-transfer promotion to the post of Instructor Grade-I and to finalise Annexure-A9 File No.L2/6/2016/H.Edn. by issuing amended Special Rules, and to create 292 posts of non-teaching technical staff in Govt. Engineering Colleges as recommended in Annexure-A8 report of the Department of Administrative Reforms. The petitioner, a Demonstrator in Government Polytechnic College, Koratty, having B.Tech. qualification, has been denied promotion due to the deletion of the Workshop Instructor, 2026:KER:9856 4 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 Demonstrator/Draftsman Grade-I post from the feeder category by amendment to the Special Rules with effect from 08.11.2010. Despite the submission of C.R. and the eligibility of the petitioner under the circular dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, no DPC(L) was convened, while similarly situated employees in other branches were promoted through Annexures-A4 to A7. Annexure-A9 file for amendment remains pending, whereas Annexure-A14, generated on the basis of O.A. No.1014 of 2024 for conversion of ECE vacancies to EEE, was processed expeditiously. The Tribunal initially directed the Government Pleader to obtain instructions on Annexures A9 and A14 as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.08.2025. On the next posting, it was further posted for instructions and when it came in instruction list, without hearing either side or not waiting for the instruction from the Government Pleader and not considering the reliefs sought by the petitioner, disposed of the O.A. through Ext.P3 order dated 18.09.2025, holding that the Tribunal does not have any authority to direct effectuation of amendment or to fix any time limit for effecting amendment of Special Rules. Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tribunal without giving a glimpse of Ext.P4 Government 2026:KER:9856 5 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 order dated 25.08.2025, which was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, since the entire proceedings in Annexure-A14 File No.L3/152/2024/H.Edn. was closed through Ext.P4 Government Order rejecting the claim of Akhil J. & others, which was pivotal in the petitioner's case. Ext.P3 order of the Tribunal is arbitrary, perverse, and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner-applicant. The Tribunal failed to consider the substantial issues and prayers in the original application.

4. The impugned Ext.P3 order dated 18.09.2025 of the Tribunal reads thus:

"The applicant is seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Annexure A11 representation. The request in Annexure A11 is for amendment of the Special Rules with respect to the appointment to the post of Ist Grade Instructor. In view of the settled position of law, this Tribunal does not have any authority to direct effectuation of amendment or to fix any time limit for effecting amendment of Special Rules. Therefore this Original Application is disposed of. This will not stand in the way of any action if any, pending on Annexure A11."

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

2026:KER:9856 6 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal passed Ext.P3 order without getting any instruction from the respondents, which violated the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have considered the prayer to convene the DPC (L) based on the Confidential Report of the petitioner as per Annexure A1 circular dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal ought to have directed the 1 st respondent to finalise Annexure A9 file and issue the amended special rules forthwith. Similarly, the Tribunal ought to have directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on Annexure A11 representation dated 13.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the prayer of the petitioner is to convert the Instructor Grade I post in the Electronics Department to the Instructor Grade I post of the Electrical Department. By Ext.P4 order dated 25.08.2025, the Government has rejected the aforesaid request of the petitioner. The remedy of the petitioner if he is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order is to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

2026:KER:9856 7 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025

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 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.

10. 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 2026:KER:9856 8 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 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.

11. 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 2026:KER:9856 9 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

12. 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.

13. 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 2026:KER:9856 10 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 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.

14. On a perusal of the reliefs sought by the petitioner- applicant in the original application, it can be seen that the main request of the petitioner is for amendment of the special rules with respect to the appointment to the post of 1st Grade Instructor. According to the petitioner, the post of Instructor Grade I in the Electronics Department has to be converted to Instructor Grade I post in the Electrical Department for the reason that the posts in the Electronics Department are lying vacant. This request was rejected by the Government as per Ext.P4 order dated 25.08.2025. As rightly held by the Tribunal, the Tribunal does not 2026:KER:9856 11 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 have the authority to direct amendment or to fix any time limit for effecting the amendment of the special rules. The remaining reliefs sought by the petitioner in the original application are consequential to the main relief.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal which warrants interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                                 MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                                            2026:KER:9856
                                 12
OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025

When we pronounced the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, along with a memo dated 04.02.2026, the petitioner has produced a circular dated 03.02.2026 of the Director of Technical Education as Bench Mark, whereby the confidential report of the petitioner was called for, to show that the respondents are considering the eligibility of the petitioner for by transfer appointment to the post of Instructor Grade-I. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government pleader, we find no relevancy for this document on the issue decided in this original petition. Hence, we find it unnecessary to accept the same on file.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                              MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
                                                                   2026:KER:9856
                                        13
OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025


                        APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 413 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure-A1                  TRUE    COPY     OF    THE    CIRCULAR     NO.

EGI/49055/23/D.T.E. DATED 27.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.334/2017 DATED 27.06.2019 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. Annexure-A3 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.98/2020/ H.EDN.

DATED 29.02.2020.

Annexure-A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EC5/51212/2010 DATED 05.10.2021 (ELECTRONICS ENGINEERING) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EC5/51212/2010 DATED 05.10.2021 (CIVIL ENGINEERING) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A6                  TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. E.C.1/37479/
                             14/D.T.E.    DATED   05.10.2021    (ELECTRICAL

ENGINEERING) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A7                  TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. EC2/40324/14/
                             D.T.E.    DATED     05.10.2021     (MECHANICAL

ENGINEERING) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure-A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DETAILED STUDY REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (A.R.2) DATED MARCH 2018.

Annexure-A9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILE NO.L2/6/2016 H.EDN. IN E-OFFICE PORTAL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. NO.1298/2021 DATED 15.07.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. Annexure-A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.08.2025 ALONG WITH ITS POSTAL RECEIPT.

Annexure-A12 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS).NO.298/ 2021/H.EDN.

DATED 12.07.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

Annexure-A13                 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.EGI/49055/23/DTE
                             DATED   20.01.2024    ISSUED    BY   THE   2ND
                             RESPONDENT.
Annexure-A14                 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILE

NO.L3/152/2024/H.EDN. IN E-OFFICE PORTAL OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A.(EKM)NO.1302/2025 DATED 21.08.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPLICANT BEFORE THE KERALA 2026:KER:9856 14 OP(KAT)No.413 of 2025 ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.(EKM) NO.1302/2025 OF THE HON'BLE KAT DATED 21.08.2025.

Exhibit-P3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A.(EKM)NO.1302/2025 DATED 18.09.2025 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM.

Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.1132/2025/HEDN DATED 25.08.2025.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court