Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting grave injustices and does not allow the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of lower tribunals.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S., J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.1373 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (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.P6 order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior Consultant in Anaesthesia at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District, is aggrieved by the denial of deputation benefit under Rule 91A of Kerala Service Rules Part-I for the period he underwent post-graduation course from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2015. After successfully completing the post-graduation course, he rejoined service without any delay. The post-graduation degree in Medicine acquired by him is intended to enhance the usefulness of the petitioner as a member of the medical service and to improve his prospects in the medical service. Therefore, the leave availed by the petitioner ought to have counted for increments and grade promotion as granted to the similarly situated persons by Annexures A7, A9 and A10 Government orders. Annexure-A11 to A13 government orders specifically stated that the same nature of leave availed by the petitioner is to be treated for deputation benefits. But the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Annexures A6 & A16 government orders, on the ground that the petitioner underwent higher study in the All India quota and also the M.D. Anaesthesia acquired by the petitioner is not necessary for regular line of promotion. This Court in Annexure A5 judgment held that the writ petitioner therein is eligible to get all benefits under Rule 91A of Part I KSR. The identical issue has been considered by this Court in Deepika v. State of Kerala in W.P. (C) No. 3014 of 2006, and the claim of the petitioner therein was allowed. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mahesh in Writ Appeal No. 1639 of 2011 also held that the appellants in that Writ Appeal are eligible to grant all benefits under Rule 91A of Part I KSR. Hence, Annexures A6 & A16 Government orders are discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. 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 reliefs:

“(i) issue appropriate order or direction to call for the records leading to Annexure-A6 & A16 issued by the 1^st respondent and to set aside the same.

(ii) issue a declaration that the applicant is eligible and entitled for the deputation benefits U/R 91 A of KSR Part -I for the period from 22.07.2012 to 01.07.2015.

(iii) issue appropriate order or direction to the 1st respondent to allow the claim of the applicant for deputation benefits during the period of leave availed for the purpose of acquiring M.D. Anaesthesia from 22.07.2012 to 01.07.2015 and to disburse the monetary benefits.

(iv) to direct the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to grant the deputation benefits to the applicant by adopting the same guideline which was adopted while passing Annexure-A7, A8, A9 and A10 orders of other similarly placed Medical Officers”.

3. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, a reply statement dated 01.03.2024 was filed in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 20.05.2024. Thereafter, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 31.05.2024 was filed i