AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners-applicants filed O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order directing the State of Kerala to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations dated 07.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 25.02.2025, respectively, made by them, within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal; and an order directing the State of Kerala, the 1st respondent therein, to extend the benefit of Annexure A1 All India Council for Technical Education [Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Qualifications for the Teachers and other Academic Staff in Technical Institutions (Diploma)] Regulations, 2010 and Annexure A3 All India Council for Technical Education [Pay Scales, Service Conditions and Minimum Qualifications for the appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff such as Library, Physical Education and Training and Placement Personnel in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Degree)] Regulations, 2019, to the applicants, within a time frame to be fixed by the Tribunal.
On 25.03.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, presented on 18.03.2025, came up for admission, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent State to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations. After recording the said submission, the Tribunal, by Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025, disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal reads thus;
“Applicants claim that the benefit of AICTE Regulations are not extended to the applicants who are working as Head of the Department of Computer Application and Business Management. Their claim is that they are not granted the scale of pay admissible under the AICTE Scheme to the Head of Departments in other disciplines in the Polytechnic College. Similarly, it is also their case that they are not considered for appointment as Principals along with other Faculties and HODs. Pointing out the same, applicants have submitted Annexures A6 to A8 representations before the 1st respondent.
2.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” (underline supplied)
Alleging willful disobedience of the direction contained in Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM) No.461 of 2025, the applicants filed CP(EKM)No.104 of 2025 before the Tribunal on 05.08.2025, invoking the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The grounds raised in CP(EKM)No. 104 of 2025 read thus;
“1.The disobedience shown by the respondents to Annexure P1 is wilful and deliberate.
2.There is absolutely no justification for not complying with Annexure P1 order.
3.Despite due service of the Hon'ble Tribunal's order (Annexure P1) dated March 25, 2025, in O.A.(Ekm)No.461 of 2025, and the lapse of adequate time, the respondents have wilfully failed to comply with the specific direction to consider and pass orders on the applicants' representations (Annexures A6 to A8) seeking extension of AICTE Regulations benefits, including the admissible scale of pay and consideration for appointment as Principals. The respondents' complete inaction, with no communication or orders issued to date, has resulted in continued denial of the applicants' rightful claims under the AICTE Regulations, causing significant prejudice to their professional and financial interests and violating the Tribunal's mandate.
4.The 2nd respondent has not forwarded the requisite documents necessary for enabling compliance with the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal in Annexure P1.” (underline supplied)
The draft charges in CP(EKM)No.104 of 2025 against the 1st respondent, who was the Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, read thus;
“NATURE OF DRAFT CHARGES AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT
This Hon'ble Tribunal, by order dated 25.03.2025 in O.A. [EKM]No.461 of 2025 (Annexure P1), directed you, Dr. Sharmila Mary Joseph, I.A.S., Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, who is arrayed as the 1st respondent in the said Original Application, to consider and pass orders on the representations submitted by the petitioners (Annexures A6 to A8) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. These representations concern the extension of AICTE pay scale benefits and eligibility for appointment as Principal. The certified copy of the order was served on you on 10.04.2025. Despite the clear direction and ample time granted, you have neither passed any order nor taken any steps towards compliance. No communication has been made to the petitioners. Your continued inaction amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the binding directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
By falling to implement the order of this Tribunal, you have shown conscious disregard for its authority and have made yourself liable to be proceeded against for civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.” (underline supplied)
The draft charges in CP(EKM)No.104 of 2025 against the 2nd respondent, who was the Director (Full Additional Charge), Directorate of Technical Education, read thus;
“NATURE OF DRAFT CHARGES AGAINST THE 2nd RESPONDENT
This Hon'ble Tribunal, by its final order dated 25.03.2025 in O.A.[EKM]No.461 of 2025 (Annexure P1), directed that orders be passed on the petitioners' representations (Annexures A6 to A8) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. The certified copy of the order was duly served on 10.04.2025.
You, Dr. Jayaprakash P, Director [Full Additional Charge], Directorate of Technical Education, who is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in O.A.[EKM]No.461 of 2025, failed to forward the requisite documents or information necessary for enabling the 1st respondent to take a decision on the petitioners' representations. This omission has directly contributed to the non-compliance of the binding directions issued in Annexure P1 by this Hon'ble Tribunal. No explanation has been provided for this inaction. Your failure to cooperate in the implementation of the Tribunal's order constitutes wilful disobedience and deliberate disregard of its authority. You have thereby rendered yourself liable to be proceeded against for civil contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Dated this 30th day of July, 2025.” (underline supplied)
During the pendency of that interlocutory application, the State of Kerala, the 1st respondent in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, passed Ext.P4 order dated 19.08.2025. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ext.P4 order read thus;
“4.As per AICTE F.No.27/RIFD/Pay/01/2017-18 dated 28.04.2017, the relevant courses leading to degree in Engineering and Technology for recruitment to teaching positions in technical institutions are notified. CABM is not included in that list. The method of appointment and qualification prescribed for the post of Lecturer in CABM and HOD in CABM is still followed as per the existing Special Rules G.O(P)No.126/2009/Hedn dated 05.08.2009. All the existing teachers, fully qualified as per AICTE norms, were placed into AICTE scheme with effect from 01.07.2013 exempting the Lecturers in CABM and HODS in CABM who still continue in the state scale of pay.
5.As CABM [Computer Application and Business Management] is not included in the list of relevant courses leading to a degree in Engineering and Technology as above, and the method of appointment and qualification prescribed for the faculties in CABM is still followed as per the existing Special Rules, the Government cannot directly place the faculties of CABM under AICTE. In these circumstances, a committee has been constituted by the Director of Technical Education, as per the proceedings read as 2nd paper above, to redefine the qualifications of teaching posts in line with AICTE norms after evaluating the syllabus of non-engineering diploma courses such as Computer Application and Business Management and Commercial Practice. Appropriate decision will be taken by the Government once the proposal of the above committee is received in Government. Thus, the order dated 25.03.2025 of the Hon'ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 is complied with accordingly.”
(underline supplied)
On 26.08.2025, when C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 came up for consideration, the Tribunal closed the same by Ext.P5 order dated 26.08.2025, which reads thus;
“Learned Government Pleader handed over a copy of the G.O.(Rt.)1106/2025/HEDN dated 19.08.2025, disposing of the representation submitted by the applicant. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed.” (underline supplied)
Challenging Ext.P5 order dated 26.08.2025 of the Tribunal in C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, the petitioners-applicants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
We heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P5 order dated 26.08.2025 of the Tribunal in C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court.
In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.
In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
As already noticed hereinbefore, on 25.03.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 came up for admission, the Tribunal disposed of the said original application by Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025, after recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 1st respondent State to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations, with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.
Annexures A6 to A8 representations made by the petitioners-applicants are dated 07.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 25.02.2025, respectively. The applicants filed O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 before the Tribunal on 18.03.2025, within a short span of time, wherein it is stated that it is necessary in the interest of justice that Annexures A6 to A8 representations are considered by the 1st respondent State without any further delay.
In Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 v. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy [(1995) 1 SCC 332], the Apex Court held that the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunals under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned, and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
When the jurisdiction exercised by the Administrative Tribunals under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is akin to that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before directing the 1st respondent State in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 to consider Annexures A6 to A8 representations dated 07.02.2025, 07.02.2025 and 25.02.2025, respectively, made by the applicants, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that there is a failure on the part of the 1st respondent State or the officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation.
In the instant case, a reading of Ext.P4 order dated 19.08.2025 issued by the 1st respondent State in O.A.(EKM)No. 461 of 2025 would show that as Computer Application and Business Management (CABM) is not included in the list of relevant courses leading to a degree in Engineering and Technology, and the method of appointment and qualification prescribed for the faculties in CABM are still followed as per the existing Special Rules, the Government cannot directly place the faculties of CABM under All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). In such circumstances, a committee has been constituted by the Director of Technical Education, as per the proceedings dated 18.04.2025, to redefine the qualifications for teaching posts in line with AICTE norms, after evaluating the syllabi of non-engineering diploma courses such as CABM and Commercial Practice.
When the request made by the petitioners-applicants in Annexures A6 to A8 representations is for extending the benefit of AICTE Regulations, including the AICTE pay scale, to the faculties of CABM, the Tribunal ought not to have disposed of the original application at the threshold, on the first posting date itself, by directing the 1st respondent State to consider and pass orders on those representations within a period of three months, even without ascertaining the process that needs to be undertaken for extending such benefits to the faculties of CABM, in case they have a legal right to claim such benefits, and also the time reasonably required for the completion of that process. Such an exercise ought to have been undertaken by the Tribunal, considering the nature of the reliefs sought for in Annexures A6 to A8 representations, since, before directing the 1st respondent State to consider those representations made by the applicants, the Tribunal has to satisfy itself that there is a failure on the part of the 1st respondent State or the officer concerned to discharge the statutory obligation, within a reasonable time.
On 05.08.2025, the applicants filed C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, alleging willful disobedience of the direction contained in Ext.P2 order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, whereby that original application was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent State to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. One of the grounds raised in C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 (Ground No.3) is that, despite due service of the order dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025, and the lapse of adequate time, the respondents have wilfully failed to comply with the specific direction to consider and pass orders on Annexures A6 to A8 representations. In the draft charges in C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 against respondents 1 and 2, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs 4 and 5, it is stated that the certified copy of the order dated 25.03.2025 was served on the said respondents on 10.04.2025.
When, as stated in Ext.P4 order dated 19.08.2025, a committee has been constituted by the Director of Technical Education, as per the proceedings dated 18.04.2025, to redefine the qualifications for teaching posts in line with AICTE norms, after evaluating the syllabi of non-engineering diploma courses such as CABM and Commercial Practice and the 1st respondent State in O.A.(EKM)No.461 of 2025 is awaiting the proposal of the said committee for taking an appropriate decision of the request made by the petitioners-applicants in Annexures A6 to A8 representations, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully failed to comply with the specific direction contained in the dated 25.03.2025 of the Tribunal in said original application to consider and pass orders on those representations, thereby attracting invocation of the power of the Tribunal to punish for contempt, under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, read with the provisions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
In the above circumstances, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in closing the contempt petition, i.e., C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025, by Ext.P5 order dated 26.08.2025, when it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, by the learned Government Pleader, that Annexures A6 to A8 representations have already been disposed of by Ext.P4 Government order dated 19.08.2025. It cannot be said that while closing C.P.(EKM)No.104 of 2025 by Ext.P4 order, the Tribunal committed a manifest error, or the said decision of the Tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law, or in violation of the basic principles of natural justice, warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, this original petition fails, and the same is accordingly dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners-applicants to challenge Ext.P4 Government order dated 19.08.2025, before the appropriate forum, if so advised, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 460 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION F.NO.37-3/ LEGAL/2010 DATED 22.1.2010 OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF G.O (MS) NO. 75/2014/FIN DATED 20/02/2014 OF THE FINANCE (PAY REVISION CELL-C) DEPARTMENT ALONG WITH ANNEXURES
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE NOTIFICATION F.NO.61-1/ RIFD/7TH CPC/2016-2017 DATED 01.03.2019 OF ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.97/2021/H.EDN DATED 16/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO.291/2022/H.EDN DATED 10/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.02.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9, BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.02.2025 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure P1 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A. [EKM]NO. 461/2025 DATED 25.3.2025 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.A.(EKM) NO. 461 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 25.03.2025 IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 461 OF 2025 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF C.P [EKM] NO. 104/2025 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING G.O.(RT) NO. 1106/2025/HEDN DATED 19-08-2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 26/08/2025 IN C.P [EKM] NO.104/2025 IN OA[EKM]-461/2025 ON THE FILES OF THE HON’BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL