The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 cannot extend to issuing certiorari concerning tribunal proceedings, emphasizing adherence to tribunal procedures.

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is the applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.1660 of

2024, has filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , seeking the following relief;

“(A) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, to expeditiously hear and dispose of O.A.[EKM]No.1660 of 2024, preferably within a month, considering the imminent retirement of the petitioner on March 31^st, 2026 on a daily hearing basis.”

2. The applicant, who is working as Head of Department in the Department of Computer Applications and Business Management (CABM) at the Government Women’s Polytechnic College, Kottakkal, who is holding additional charge of Principal, has filed O.A.(EKM)No.1660 of 2024 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking an order directing respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the applicant is duly considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Principal/Deputy Director in Polytechnic Colleges/Technical Education Department, based on his qualifications and other eligibility. The applicant has also sought for an order promoting him to the post of Principal in a Government Polytechnic College under the Technical Education Department.

3. On 23.06.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.1660 of 2024 came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed Annexure A8 interim order, which reads thus;

“The applicant claims that the selection for the post of Principals are going on and his case is not being considered. It is submitted that verification of certificates are going on. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 & 2 to see that the case of the applicant is also considered for appointment as principal, provisionally and subject to further orders in this Original Application. It is made clear that applicant will not be entitled to claim any rights only on the basis of participation in the selection process.”

4. On 10.08.2025, the petitioner-applicant filed Ext.P2 Miscellaneous Application seeking the following relief;

“To order the extension of the Interim Order dated 23-06- 2025 to cover the present, on-going recruitment process under Annexure A9 for the post of Principals, Govt. Polytechnic Colleges by directing the provisional inclusion of this applicant in the interview process.”

Thereafter, the petitioner-applicant has approached this Court by filing this original petition.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1, 2 and 4 and also the learned Standing Counsel for All India Council for Technical Education for the 3^rd respondent.

6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.

7. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt