Kerala High Court on Supervisory Jurisdiction Under Article 227: Expired Rank List Does Not Warrant Interference

Headnote:

The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Additional Bench, Ernakulam) that denied the petitioner’s claim for appointment as Lecturer in Kannada. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate in nature and cannot be used to correct mere errors of the tribunal. Since the rank list relied upon by the petitioner had expired and vacancies had been filled from a subsequent rank list, there was no ground for interference.

Background:

1. The petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Kannada on UGC scale in the Collegiate Education Department (Category No. 581/2012).
2. Following the written test and interview, the petitioner’s name appeared first in the supplementary list under the Ezhava/Thiyya/Billava quota in Annexure A1 rank list effective 17.03.2017, which expired on 16.03.2020.
3. A vacancy arose on 17.01.2020 but was earmarked for candidates with disabilities. The petitioner’s representation of 03.02.2020 went unheeded.
4. The petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking directions for reporting the vacancy and issuing advice based on Annexure A1 rank list. The Tribunal dismissed the application on 19.05.2025, noting that the vacancy had been filled from a subsequent rank list and the original rank list had expired.

Court’s Observations:

1. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be exercised as an appellate authority.
2. High Court interference is justified only where there is manifest error, perversity, gross miscarriage of justice, or violation of natural justice principles.
3. In the present case, the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction; the post was properly allocated to disabled candidates as per the Disability Act, 1995, and appointments were made from the new rank list.
4. Mere dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s reasoning or delay in action does not constitute sufficient ground for interference.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Article 227, Constitution of India – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts over all courts and tribunals.
2. Section 36, Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Reservation of posts for persons with disabilities.
3. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Jurisdiction and functioning of Administrative Tribunals.

Result

The Original Petition (OP(KAT) No. 254 of 2025) was dismissed, and no interference with the Tribunal’s order dated 19.05.2025 was warranted.

Citation: 2025:KER:91232

Case: Jayanthi K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

Coram: Justice Anil K. Narendran & Justice Muralee Krishna S.

Date of Decision: 27 November 2025

OP(KAT) No.: 254 of 2025