The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to correcting manifest errors or perverse findings by lower tribunals; it cannot act as an appellate court, and leave eligibility is governed by the rules in force at the time of the request.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in T.A.No.5291 of 2012 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Annexure A1 order dated 10.08.2018 passed by the Tribunal in that Transferred Application.

2. The petitioner, a Veterinary Surgeon previously working as Livestock Inspector in the Animal Husbandry Department, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.20619 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

“(i) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P11 as unjust, illegal and unsustainable;

(ii) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P9 as unjust, illegal and unsustainable;

(iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to leave for study purpose for the from 20.09.2005 to 19.09.2007 as per Rule 99 read with Rule 91 of Part I KSR”.

3. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 07.10.2004 for earned leave for 123 days, half pay leave for 160 days and study leave for the remaining days up to 5 years from 11.12.2004 onwards. By Ext.P2 letter dated 08.10.2004 addressed to the 3^rd respondent District Animal Husbandry Officer, the 4^th respondent Assistant Project Officer, recommended to grant the petitioner earned leave for 123 days and half pay leave for 160 days. Thereafter Ext.P3 letter dated 13.06.2005 was issued by the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent in which it was stated that the petitioner was granted Leave Without Allowance for study purposes with effect from 08.11.2004, pointing out that the classes in the veterinary college started on 08.11.2004 and the petitioner was supposed to join the classes on 11.12.2004 and was relieved with effect from 10.12.2004. The 4^th respondent requested the 3^rd respondent to grant the petitioner study leave for five years, with effect from 11.12.2004, excluding the aforesaid 123 days of earned leave and 160 days of half pay leave as Leave Without Allowance. Accordingly, the 4^th respondent sought modification of the government order, which granted five years leave to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P4 order dated 26.03.2007 modifying the leave granted to the petitioner as earned leave for 123 days from 11.12.2004 to 13.04.2005, half pay leave for 160 days from 14.05.2005 to 20.09.2005, and Leave Without Allowance under Rule 88 of Part I Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ for short) for the remaining period from 21.09.2005. By Ext.P5 letter dated 21.05.2007 issued to the 3^rd respondent, the 4^th respondent pointed out a minor discrepancy with respect to the dates from which the leave had to be sanctioned to the petitioner. By Ext.P6 letter dated 26.07.2007, the 4^th respondent requested the petitioner to submit a representation for rectification of the mistake in the dates of sanctioning of the leave. Thereafter, the Government issued Ext.P7 order dated 24.11.2007 rectifying the dates of sanctioning of three types of leave as sought for in Ext.P5, i.e., earned leave for 123 days from 11.12.2004 to 12.04.2005, half pay leave for 160 days from 13.04.2005 to 19.09.2005 and Leave Without Allowance from 20.09.2005 to 10.12.2009.

3.1. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P8 representation dated 15.01.2008, requesting to split up the Leave Without Allowance granted to him for the period from 20.09.2005 to 19.09.2007, granting salary for the said period of