Promotion is an incidence of service, not a right, and a claim for promotion is contingent upon the existence of vacancies. The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors or perversity and does not extend to acting as an appellate court.

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.

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 S