Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1157

2026 KER 37528
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.

Vijith T.K., S/o. Bhaskaran T.K. – Petitioner
Versus
Sharmila Mary Joseph IAS – Respondent
OP(KAT) No. 460 of 2025
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Sri. M.H. Asif Ali, Sri. S. Muhammed Haneeff, Shri. Aravind T. Ramesh, Shri. Ashik Ali M.H., Smt. Aswathi K.C.
Other Present : Smt. Princy Xavier, Sr. GP

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Senior Government Pleader

The high court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to correcting manifest errors or perversity by lower tribunals. Contempt proceedings are correctly closed when authorities demonstrate substantial compliance with an order to consider representations, preventing the high court from acting as an appellate authority.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Power of superintendence - Scope and ambit - The supervisory jurisdiction of a high court is not appellate in nature - Interference with orders of subordinate tribunals is limited to instances of manifest error, patent perversity, or gross failure of justice - High courts must not substitute their own views for those of the tribunal. (Paras 12, 14, 15, 16)

(B) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 17 - Wilful disobedience - Compliance with directions - When a respondent authority acts upon a tribunal's direction to consider representations by initiating a consultative process and issuing a formal order, a contempt petition cannot be maintained unless there is evidence of bad faith or contumacious conduct - The closing of a contempt petition upon the fulfillment of the procedural mandate by the authorities is within the bounds of judicial discretion. (Paras 25, 26)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought the extension of specific educational service benefits and pay scales. The tribunal directed the authorities to consider their representations within a specified timeframe. Alleging non-compliance, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings. During the pendency of these proceedings, the authorities passed an order outlining the complexities regarding the requested benefits and detailing the constitution of a committee to evaluate qualification norms. Observing that the direction to consider the representation was fulfilled, the tribunal closed the contempt proceedings. This decision was challenged under the supervisory jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the tribunal had not committed any manifest error or acted with perversity. Evidence showed that the authorities had engaged with the grievance by forming a committee to address the underlying qualification issues, which constituted meaningful consideration of the representations as mandated by the earlier order. Consequently, the closure of the contempt proceedings was upheld as a valid exercise of discretion.

Issues: The main issues were whether the tribunal was justified in closing the contempt proceedings upon the issuance of the government order and whether the parameters for exercising supervisory jurisdiction were met to warrant interference by the high court.

Ratio Decidendi: The high court's supervisory power is restricted to ensuring that tribunals act within their legal bounds and that basic principles of justice are upheld. Since the authorities effectively performed the procedural duty imposed by the tribunal, there was no factual basis to establish willful disobedience. The tribunal correctly declined to proceed with the contempt petition, and interference was unjustified as the decision was neither arbitrary nor legally infirm.

Result: Original petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners-applicants filed O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order directing the State of Kerala to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations dated 07.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 25.02.2025, respectively, made by them, within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal; and an order directing the State of Kerala, the 1st respondent therein, to extend the benefit of Annexure A1 All India Council for Technical Education [Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma)] Regulations, 2010 and Annexure A3 All India Council for Technical Education [Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for the appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training and Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Degree)] Regulations, 2019, to the applicants, within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal.

2. On 25.03.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, presented on 18.03.2025, came up for admission, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent State to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations. After recording the said submission, the Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025, disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal reads thus;

“Applicants claim that the benefit of AICTE Regulations are not extended to the applicants who are working as Head of the Department of Computer Application and Business Management. Their claim is that they are not granted the scale of pay admissible under the AICTE Scheme to the Head of Departments in other disciplines in the Polytechnic College. Similarly, it is also their case that they are not considered for appointment as Principals along with other Faculties and HODs. Pointing out the same, applicants have submitted Annexures A6 to A8 representations before the 1st respondent.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations.

Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” (underline supplied)

3. Alleging willful disobedience of the direction contained in Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.461 of 2025, the applicants filed CP(EKM)No.104 of 2025 before the Tribunal on 05.08.2025, invoking the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The grounds raised in CP(EKM)No. 104 of 2025 read thus;

“1. The disobedience shown by the respondents to Annexure P1 is wilful and deliberate.

2. There is absolutely no justification for not complying with Annexure P1 order.

3. Despite due service of the Hon’ble Tribunal’s order (Annexure P1) dated March 25, 2025, in O.A.(Ekm)No.461 of 2025, and the lapse of adequate time, the respondents have wilfully failed to comply with the specific direction to consider and pass orders on the applicants’ representations (Annexures A6 to A8) seeking extension of AICTE Regulations benefits, including the admissible scale of pay and consideration for appointment as Principals. The respondents’ complete inaction, with no communication or orders issued to date, has resulted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Ker) 1157

Cases Referred (6)