The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit the High Court to interfere unless there is a manifest error, breach of legal principles, or failure of justice in the tribunal's decisions.

JUDGMENT

[OP(KAT) Nos.471/2025, 479/2025] MURALEE KRISHNA S., J

Applicant in O.A.No.1673 of 2025 filed O.P.(KAT)No.471 of 2025 and the applicants in O.A.No.2018 of 2025 filed O.P.(KAT)No.479 of 2025, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging the common order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), in those original applications.

2. The petitioners in these original petitions are working as Principals in different Government Arts and Science Colleges under the Director of Collegiate Education. They have been provisionally appointed by the Government, by issuing an order dated 23.08.2023, pursuant to the interim order dated 03.08.2023 in O.A.No.828 of 2023 passed by the Tribunal. According to the petitioners, O.A.No.828 of 2023 was finally disposed of by Annexure A3 order dated 29.07.2025, directing the respondents to conduct a fresh selection of principals in Government Arts and Science Colleges strictly in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2018 . The petitioners plead that in Annexure A3 order the Tribunal specifically directed the constitution of a proper selection committee, adherence to eligibility as on 15.02.2022, and to complete the selection process within three months. It is the further case of the petitioners that, in violation of the above directions, the newly constituted selection committee has adopted the highest research score as the sole criterion, counted non-qualifying publications, not published the list on the day of the meeting i.e., on 18.09.2025 and forwarded a secret list of 51 candidates to the Government for DPC approval. According to them, eligible seniors, including the petitioners, are excluded, while ineligible candidates are included. Therefore, contending that the process is arbitrary, opaque, violative of UGC Regulations and amounts to willful disobedience of Annexure A3 order of the Tribunal, the petitioners approached the Tribunal with these original applications seeking declaration of the impugned selection as void and to quash the list of 51 candidates forwarded to the Government for DPC approval and to direct preparation of the select list strictly as per UGC Regulations by applying seniority after minimum eligibility and to retain the petitioners as principals until lawful completion of the process.

3. In O.A.No.1673 of 2025, on 29.09.2025, the Tribunal passed the following interim order:

“The applicant apprehends that the Selection Committee has not followed the provisions contained in the UGC Regulations, 2018 , as directed by this Tribunal, since no select list was prepared or published on 18.09.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant apprehends that the selection was made by awarding marks based on the number of research publications, including even articles published in college magazines and on the basis of the said research score, placing the applicant in disregard of seniority, even though the only requirement is that candidates should have 10 research papers and 110 research score.

2. In case the selection is made on the basis of the research score and in disregard of seniority and in Clause 5.1.viii1A(c) of the UGC Regulations, 2018 , it will become necessary to interfere with the same.

3. Learned Government Pleader shall get instructions.

Post on 09.10.2025 for further consideration.”

4. After the above interim order, the 2^nd respondent filed a statement dated 16.10.2025 in O.A.No.1673 of 2025.

5. On 24.10.2025, the Tribunal passed another interim order in O.A.No.1673