The High Court upheld the Administrative Tribunal’s dismissal of a seniority challenge, affirming that tribunals operate within their jurisdiction unless manifest errors occur.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.1959 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to quash Annexure A3 proceedings dated 05.05.2014 of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner for Rural Development publishing the final integrated seniority list of Joint Block Development Officers/Extension Officers (Housing) Grade I, Extension Officers (WW)/Extension Officers (Housing) Grade II/General Extension Officers, Village Extension Officers Grade I and Grade II; Annexure A4 extract of the final integrated seniority list of Extension Officers appended to Annexure A3; and Annexure A5 order dated 14.03.2016 issued by the 1^st respondent State, whereby the seniority claim made by the petitioner-applicant stands rejected. The applicant has also sought for a declaration that Annexure A1 to the extent it prescribes assessment of seniority in the cadre of Village Extension Officer Grade-I in terms of date of promotion instead of date of advice is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable; and to direct the respondent to prepare seniority list of Village Extension Officer Grade-I based on the date of advice in the post of Lady Village Extension Officer Grade-II and Village Extension Officer Grade-II respectively, and grant due seniority to the applicant in the cadre of Village Extension Officer Grade-I over the 3^rd respondent, who is junior to the applicant in terms of the date of advice, and grant the promotions due to the applicant in terms of the revised seniority.

2. In the original application, Ext.P3 reply statement dated 18.11.2016 has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent Commissioner for Rural Development. The 3^rd respondent has also filed Ext.P4 reply statement dated 16.01.2017, producing therewith Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) documents. The learned Senior Government Pleader filed Ext.P5 adoption memo dated 06.12.2018 for adopting the reply statement filed by the 2^nd respondent treating it as the contentions of the 1^st respondent.

3. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P1 order dated 13.12.2024 dismissed O.A.No.1959 of 2016. Paragraphs 2 to 5 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;

“2. The claim of the applicant is that seniority shall be reckoned on the basis of Rule 27(c) of Part II KS&SSR, i.e., from the date of advice. The revised seniority list has been prepared in accordance with Annexure A1 Special Rules, according to which, seniority is to be reckoned in the cadre of Village Extension Officer Grade I on the basis of date of promotion, instead of the date of advice. The grounds in the Original Application in support of the contention that the Special Rules are to be set aside is that there was no effective discussion with the Employees’ Union.

3. In the reply statement filed by the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that the integrated seniority list of Village Extension Officers and Lady Village Extension Officers is prepared in accordance with the date of promotion of the incumbents to the respective posts as per the amendment to the Special Rules in Annexure A1. It is also pointed out that the Special Rules were amended as early as in 2008 and there was no objection with respect to the procedural irregularities at the relevant time.

4. When it is stated that seniority list is prepared and published in accordance with the Special Rules and the Special Rules are challenged on the ground of lack of discussion with the