The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to correcting errors unless there's manifest injustice or a failure of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM)No.59 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P3 order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner is presently working as a Grade Sub Inspector of Police (GSI). He had entered service as a Police Constable in the year 1998, a post which was later redesignated as Civil Police Officer (CPO). While continuing in service, he was granted Grade promotion as Sub Inspector of Police, vide Annexure-A1 order dated 01.01.2024 of the 3^rd respondent with effect from 29.12.2023. But later, the 3^rd respondent issued Annexure-A2 order dated 30.10.2024, cancelling the Grade promotion granted to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed O.A. (EKM)No.1432 of 2024 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of by Annexure-A3 order dated 01.11.2024, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the 3^rd respondent with his grievance and directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and take a decision on the same within two weeks. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent passed Annexure-A4 order dated 01.01.2025, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Annexure-A5 is an order dated 25.10.2024 issued by the 3^rd respondent stating that in Annexure-A1 order, the scale of pay of the petitioner was erroneously mentioned as Rs.45,600-95,600/- instead of Rs.43,400-91,200/- and therefore the same is corrected. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, to set aside Annexures-A2, A3 and A5 orders and to declare that he is entitled to get the designation as Sub Inspector of Police (Grade)

with effect from 29.12.2023 as ordered in Annexure-A1.

3. In the original application a reply statement dated

31.03.2025 was filed on behalf of the 3^rd respondent producing therewith Annexure-R3(a) to (c) documents. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on record, the Tribunal dismissed the original application by Ext.P3 impugned order dated 15.09.2025. Paragraphs 6, 7 and also the last paragraph of that order read thus;

“6.Annexure R3(b) issued on 06.11.2012 provides that grade designation is admissible to only those Senior grade police officers who have completed 23 years of service and passed the General Head Constable Test and against whom no disciplinary action is pending. It is also subject to the condition that there will not be any additional financial commitments on the part of the Government. By Annexure R3(c) order dated 19.10.2019, the requisite number of years or grade designation for the Senior Civil Police Officers has been 12 years of service.

7.The applicant does not have a case that he has passed General Head Constable Test. The respondents have stated that the scale of pay of the applicant happened to be stated above on account of the lapses committed on the part of the Section Clerk. The contention of the applicant that Rule 13 B of part II of KS & SSR is applicable for the applicant to enjoy the scale of pay of Sub Inspector Grade Designation is also not accepted as the said Rule is not applicable to tests prescribed for the purposes of promotion of executive staff belonging to the Police Department. It is also submitted that just because of the applicant's juniors are