The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot overturn lower tribunal decisions unless there is manifest error or grave dereliction of duty.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P3 order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to stall all the further proceedings on Annexure- A14 File No.L3/152/2024/H.Edn. of the 1^st respondent forthwith;

(ii) to issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to convene DPC(L) based on the C.R. submission of the applicant as per Annexure-A1 circular No. EGI/49055/ 23/D.T.E. dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent and promote the applicant as Instructor Grade-I forthwith;

(iii) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to finalize Annexure-A9 File No. L2/6/2016 H.Edn. and issue the amended special rule forthwith;

(iv) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to create 292 posts for non-teaching technical staffs for the smooth functioning of B.Tech. Labs in Government Engineering Colleges due to the scarcity of staffs as per Annexure-A8 detailed study report includes General Recommendations constituted by the Department of Administrative Reforms (A.R.2);

(v) to issue an order or direction, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass favourable orders on Annexure-A11 representation submitted by the applicant after affording an opportunity of hearing”

3. Going by the pleadings in the original petition, the petitioner has filed O.A.(EKM) No.1302 of 2025, seeking to stall further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A14 File No.L3/152/2024/H.Edn. and to direct the 1^st respondent to convene DPC(L) based on Annexure-A1 Circular dated 27.06.2024 for by-transfer promotion to the post of Instructor Grade-I and to finalise Annexure-A9 File No.L2/6/2016/H.Edn. by issuing amended Special Rules, and to create 292 posts of non-teaching technical staff in Govt. Engineering Colleges as recommended in Annexure-A8 report of the Department of Administrative Reforms. The petitioner, a Demonstrator in Government Polytechnic College, Koratty, having B.Tech. qualification, has been denied promotion due to the deletion of the Workshop Instructor, Demonstrator/Draftsman Grade-I post from the feeder category by amendment to the Special Rules with effect from 08.11.2010. Despite the submission of C.R. and the eligibility of the petitioner under the circular dated 27.06.2024 issued by the 2^nd respondent, no DPC(L) was convened, while similarly situated employees in other branches were promoted through Annexures-A4 to A7. Annexure-A9 file for amendment remains pending, whereas Annexure-A14, generated on the basis of O.A. No.1014 of 2024 for conversion of ECE vacancies to EEE, was processed expeditiously. The Tribunal initially directed the Government Pleader to obtain instructions on Annexures A9 and A14 as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.08.2025. On the next posting, it was further posted for instructions and when it came in instruction list, without hearing either side or not waiting for the instruction from the Government Pleader and not considering the reliefs sought by the petitioner, disposed of the O.A. through Ext.P3 order dated 18.09.2025, holding that the Tribunal does not have any aut