Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 655 (KER)

Sam Antony S/o J. Antony v. State of Kerala

2026-06-02

Anil K Narendran, Muralee Krishna S

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J. 1. The petitioner-applicant filed O.A.No.158 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a declaration that he is eligible to be granted notional promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, with effect from 28.06.2022, date of arising of the third vacancy to the post of Chief Engineering (Civil), as all the incumbents in the select list including him would have been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, if the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on time and promotions have been effected to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) in a timely manner; and an order directing the respondents to grant him notional promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, with effect from 28.06.2022, and grant all consequential benefits. 2. Along with the original application, the applicant has placed on record Annexures A1 to A11 documents. The 1 st respondent State filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 06.05.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) order dated 13.03.2024. The applicant filed Ext.P4 rejoinder dated 21.06.2024, producing therewith Annexures A12 to A14 documents. It was followed by Ext.P5 additional reply statement dated 19.07.2024 filed by the 1 st respondent State, producing therewith Annexure R1(b) order dated 28.02.2023. The applicant filed Ext.P6 rejoinder dated 30.07.2024 to the additional reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent State, producing therewith Annexures A13 and A14. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by Ext.P1 order dated 11.11.2025, dismissed O.A.No.158 of 2024. Paragraph 9 of that order reads thus: “9. The applicant retired from service on 31.10.2023. He is deeply aggrieved by the delay that occurred in effecting promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the Irrigation Department. Had those promotions been effected in due time, the applicant could have secured promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. But till the retirement of the applicant, no vacancies arose in the post of Superintending Engineer. In the absence of any vacancy, the applicant could not have claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The applicant has referred to two judgments Annexures A9 and A10. In that case vacancies were available on the date of retirement, and the applicant therein was fully qualified and eligible to be considered for promotions. In the absence of any vacancy, the applicant could not have claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The applicant has referred to two judgments Annexures A9 and A10. In that case vacancies were available on the date of retirement, and the applicant therein was fully qualified and eligible to be considered for promotions. Only due to administrative reasons, no steps were taken for filling up of available vacancies and for effecting promotions. It was in the above background that this Tribunal directed the respondents to grant notional promotion to the applicant. The Hon’ble High Court, while considering O.P(KAT)No. 229 of 2023 filed against the Annexure A9 order, had found that Rule 28(b)(i)(14) squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of the case. But in the present case, no substantive right had accrued to the applicant for getting promoted as Superintending Engineer, as no vacancies were available till his retirement. Therefore, we find that the applicant is not entitled to the declaration sought in the original application. Accordingly, this original application is dismissed.” 3. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 11.11.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.158 of 2024, the petitioner-applicant is before this Court in this writ petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that the Tribunal passed Ext.P1 order in O.A.No.158 of 2024, without properly appreciating the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant. If the DPC had been convened on time and promotions had been effected to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) in time, the applicant could have been promoted to the post of Superintendent Engineer, with effect from 28.06.2022. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the applicant, who retired from the post of Executive Engineer (Civil), was not promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), in the absence of vacancies. None of the juniors of the applicant was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), overlooking his seniority. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order in O.A.No.158 of 2024, which is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warrants no interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. None of the juniors of the applicant was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil), overlooking his seniority. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order in O.A.No.158 of 2024, which is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warrants no interference in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 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. 13. As already noticed hereinbefore, the main relief sought for in O.A.No.158 of 2024 is a declaration that the applicant is eligible to be granted notional promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer with effect from 28.06.2022, date of arising of the third vacancy to the post of Chief Engineering (Civil), as all the incumbents in the select list including him would have been promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer, if the DPC was convened on time and promotions have been effected to the post of Chief Engineer (Civil) in a timely manner. 14. It is well settled that, though not a right, promotion is an incidence of service. If a post, in terms of the recruitment rules, is to be filled up by promotion from amongst those in the feeder post and there are employees in the feeder post for being considered for promotion in accordance with such rules, the qualified employees can claim a right for being considered for promotion in accordance with the recruitment rules, once the exercise for such promotion is initiated by the employer. If an employee is entitled to be brought under the zone of consideration, he has a right to be considered for promotion. 15. The petitioner-applicant retired from service on 31.10.2023. Till the retirement of the applicant, no vacancies arose in the post of Superintending Engineer. In the absence of any vacancy, he could not have claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. 15. The petitioner-applicant retired from service on 31.10.2023. Till the retirement of the applicant, no vacancies arose in the post of Superintending Engineer. In the absence of any vacancy, he could not have claimed promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. In Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal noticed that in Annexure A9 order of the Tribunal dated 20.01.2023 in O.A.No.1655 of 2019 and Annexure A10 order of this Court dated 06.06.2023 in O.P.(KAT)No.229 of 2023 (arising out of Annexure A9 order of the Tribunal), vacancies were available on the date of retirement of the applicant-petitioner therein, and she was fully qualified and eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Child Development Project Officer. Only due to administrative reasons, no steps were taken to fill up the available vacancies by effecting promotions. In Annexure A10 order in O.P(KAT)No.229 of 2023, this Court found that Rule 28(b)(i)(4) of Part II Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which mandates the preparation of a select list during a calendar year for vacancies estimated to arise in the next year, etc., squarely applied to the facts and circumstances of that case. 16. In the case at hand, in Ext.P1 order in O.A.No.158 of 2024, the Tribunal found that no substantive right had accrued to the applicant for getting promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, as no vacancies were available till his retirement. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the declaration sought in O.A.No.158 of 2024. The reasoning of the Tribunal is Ext.P1 order is neither perverse nor patently illegal. It cannot also be said that while passing Ext.P1 order, rejecting the reliefs sought for in O.A.No.158 of 2024, the Tribunal committed a manifest error. In the above circumstances, Ext.P1 order warrants no interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this original petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed.