The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit interference with subordinate court decisions unless there is a clear error or abuse of discretion, emphasizing timely claims for promotion.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.2248 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’, in short), filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner entered into service as a Copyist in the Revenue Department as per the advice of the Kerala Public Service Commission on 20.10.1970. He retired from the post of Tahsildar upon attainment of the age of superannuation. Although from 01.07.1968 onwards, the salary of copyist, Lower Division clerk (LDC) and Village Assistant (VA), were equated, and by Government order dated 10.09.1984, the post of Village Assistant was equated to that of LDC, the Special Rules omitted to incorporate the said equalisation as far as copyist was concerned. So the Government issued Annexure A2 G.O.(P) No. 123/93/RD dated 08.03.1993 to rectify the anomaly and to bring all categories of posts coming under the Kerala Ministerial Subordinate Service 1985, in the Land Revenue department into a State Unit System with effect from 01.11.1956, with the objective of ensuring equal chances of promotion. Further, as per Annexure A3 G.O.(P)No.58/2001/RD dated 28.02.2001 seniority of copyists was reckoned in the cadre of LDC with effect from the date of appointment as copyist. The same was also granted to the petitioner, as evident from Annexure A4 seniority list, which was published only on 16.04.2011, but with respect to the promotion posts, the seniority was not recast on the basis of Annexure A4 Seniority List. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was there in service for three more years after the issuance of Annexure A3, but since no revised seniority lists was published on the basis of Annexure A3 during the said period, he was denied with his due seniority in the higher posts and further promotions up to Deputy collector which his immediate juniors were granted with.

2.1. After retirement also the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that since his seniority was finally upheld by way of Annexure A4, further promotions by way of notional promotions would have naturally been effected on the basis of the seniority in the cadre of LDC. But even the first Statewise integrated seniority list of LDC/VA as on 10.09.1984 was prepared and published only on 16.04.2011, 6 years after the retirement of the petitioner. In the said seniority list of LDC, the petitioner was granted due seniority with effect from 20.10.1970, and hence no anomaly could be found out at the outset. Recently petitioner came to know that two juniors of the petitioner had retired from the post of Deputy Collector, whose names were not there even in the Annexure A4 Seniority List. Since their names were not included in Annexure A4 seniority list, the petitioner could not find out the said anomaly. In fact, only by way of Annexure A6 information under the RTI Act dated 28.11.2018, the petitioner got information that the said two incumbents were not included in Annexure A4 seniority list.

2.2. Although petitioner submitted representation to revise the date of effect of promotion and to grant consequential benefits by way of Annexure A7 representation dated 17.01.2019, the 2^nd respondent submitted an inherently erroneous report, stating that since district wise promotions were being effect