The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not allow High Courts to intervene in lower tribunals' orders unless there is manifest error or a violation of fundamental principles of law.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The 4th respondent in O.A.(EKM) No.174 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’, in short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P6 order dated 10.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The 1^st respondent-applicant approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A8 and set aside the same.

ii) Declare that for selection to the post of Fine Arts Expert in Government Engineering colleges only in cases of absence of candidates having degree in fine arts or commercial arts from a recognized government art institute or university, the candidates falling under the 2^nd limb that is the candidates possessing bachelor's degree of a recognized university and diploma in fine arts or commercial arts would be taken in to consideration.

iii) Declare that the 4^th respondent is not eligible to be included in the selection proceedings pursuant to the Annexure A1 notification.

iv) Declare that the applicant is eligible and entitled to be appointed as the fine arts expert pursuant to the Annexure A1 notification.

v) Issue a direction to the 2^nd respondent to appoint the applicant as the fine arts expert pursuant to the Annexure A1 notification”.

3. By the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 10.11.2025, the Tribunal allowed the original application. Paragraphs 8, 9 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

“8. It is not in dispute that, as per the prevailing Special Rules, the qualification prescribed for the post of 'Fine Arts Expert is a Degree in Fine Arts or Commercial Arts recognized by Government Art Institute or University. Only in the absence of such candidates, other candidates with Bachelor's Degree & Diploma in Fine Arts or Commercial Arts can be considered. Respondents do not have a case that in the amended Special Rules produced as Annexure R2(a), the qualification prescribed for 'Fine Arts Expert is amended. Instead, they are relying on the qualification prescribed for 'Lecturer' in the Department of Painting, for which National Diploma in Painting from a recognized University or Institution is accepted. Since there is no change in the prescribed qualification for selection of Fine Arts Expert, the selection of the 4^th respondent, ignoring the eligibility of Graduates and Post Graduates in Fine Arts is not legally sustainable. As sufficient candidates satisfying the 1^st limb of the qualification i.e. Degree in Fine Arts or Commercial Art were available, the 4^th respondent should not have been considered for selection.

9. In the result, Annexure A8 is set aside. The applicant, who is second in the list, as pèr Annexure A7 mark list, shall be advised for the post of Fine Arts Expert. The 2^nd respondent shall issue orders to this effect within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the 4^th respondent's lien as Drawing Teacher is continuing, he shall be allowed to join back as Drawing Teacher without any adverse effect on his career, as if he has never been appointed as 'Fine Arts Expert. Original Application is allowed”.

4. Being aggrieved, the 4^th respondent preferred the present original petition with the following pleadings:

4.1. The petitioner is presently working as Fine Arts Expert at the Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology (RIT), Kottayam, under the Directorate of Techn