Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.1373 of 2022 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 Ext.P6 order dated 05.11.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner, who is working as a Junior Consultant in Anaesthesia at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Thiruvalla in Pathanamthitta District, is aggrieved by the denial of deputation benefit under Rule 91A of Kerala Service Rules Part-I for the period he underwent post-graduation course from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2015. After successfully completing the post-graduation course, he rejoined service without any delay. The post-graduation degree in Medicine acquired by him is intended to enhance the usefulness of the petitioner as a member of the medical service and to improve his prospects in the medical service. Therefore, the leave availed by the petitioner ought to have counted for increments and grade promotion as granted to the similarly situated persons by Annexures A7, A9 and A10 Government orders. Annexure-A11 to A13 government orders specifically stated that the same nature of leave availed by the petitioner is to be treated for deputation benefits. But the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by Annexures A6 & A16 government orders, on the ground that the petitioner underwent higher study in the All India quota and also the M.D. Anaesthesia acquired by the petitioner is not necessary for regular line of promotion. This Court in Annexure A5 judgment held that the writ petitioner therein is eligible to get all benefits under Rule 91A of Part I KSR. The identical issue has been considered by this Court in Deepika v. State of Kerala in W.P.(C) No. 3014 of 2006, and the claim of the petitioner therein was allowed. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala v. Mahesh in Writ Appeal No. 1639 of 2011 also held that the appellants in that Writ Appeal are eligible to grant all benefits under Rule 91A of Part I KSR. Hence, Annexures A6 & A16 Government orders are discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. With these pleadings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(i) issue appropriate order or direction to call for the records leading to Annexure-A6 & A16 issued by the 1st respondent and to set aside the same.

                  (ii) issue a declaration that the applicant is eligible and entitled for the deputation benefits U/R 91 A of KSR Part -I for the period from 22.07.2012 to 01.07.2015.

                  (iii) issue appropriate order or direction to the 1st respondent to allow the claim of the applicant for deputation benefits during the period of leave availed for the purpose of acquiring M.D. Anaesthesia from 22.07.2012 to 01.07.2015 and to disburse the monetary benefits.

                  (iv) to direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant the deputation benefits to the applicant by adopting the same guideline which was adopted while passing Annexure-A7, A8, A9 and A10 orders of other similarly placed Medical Officers”.

3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 01.03.2024 was filed in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for. To that reply statement, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 20.05.2024. Thereafter, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 31.05.2024 was filed in the original application, taking a similar contention as that of the 2nd respondent. To the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 21.10.2025.

4. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P6 order, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 7 to 10 and the subsequent paragraphs of that order read thus:

                  “7. Admittedly, when the applicant went for higher studies, he had only less than three years of service as Assistant Surgeon. He was sanctioned LWA for three years vide Annexure-A1 order. This order is very specific to the effect that the leave is sanctioned under Rule 91 of Part-I KSR and the applicant is not eligible for reckoning this period for increment/higher grade/pension and for accumulation of earned leave. The applicant does not challenge this order. Instead, citing the deputation benefits granted to other Doctors, he has been seeking a declaration that he is eligible for similar benefits. When the applicant proceeded on LWA, Annexure-A11 Government Order as clarified through Annexure-A12 was in force. These Orders are specific to the effect that the deputation benefits can be allowed only for undergoing course of study/training which is prescribed for promotion to the post in the regular line of promotion of the employees, and also in cases where approved scheme exists for such deputation. It is also specified that those who wish to acquire any qualifications/training for getting appointment to higher posts outside their normal line of promotion like any mode of appointment shall undergo the course on their own accord, after availing eligible leave/LWA. Annexure-A13 scheme for deputing Medical Officers for higher studies is dated 14.08.2017 and it has only prospective effect. The respondents have a contention that Doctors who were given the deputation benefits as per the orders at Annexures-A7, A9 and A10 are covered by this order is sustainable.

                  8. While considering the representations submitted by the applicant and disposing it vide Annexure-A6 order, the first respondent had considered the applicability of Annexure-A5 judgment to the case of the applicant. It was specifically found that the said judgment was applicable only for those Doctors who had undergone the PG study during 1980-1982 and thus not applicable in case of the applicant.

                  9. Rule 91A is a specific provision incorporated in Part I KSR with effect from 15.07.1976. This Rule also specifies that those who are granted such leave under this Rule shall execute a bond in From No.12A binding themselves to serve Government after returning from leave for a specified period from 3 - 7 years depending on the duration of the course. The applicant has no contention that he had applied for leave under Rule 91A or at any point of time he had executed a bond to continue to serve the Government after completing the course as required under Rule 91A. Without challenging Annexure-A1 order, the applicant is attempting to challenge its consequences and such a contention is not sustainable.

                  10. The petitioner in Deepika's case (supra) was a teacher who had undergone B.Ed course. What was considered by the Hon'ble High Court in this case was whether leave sanctioned under Rule 88 can be considered for service like pension and whether there is any illegality in denying her service benefits for this period. Evidently, the issue under consideration before us is not similar in nature.

                  In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case presented before us, we do not find the contentions of the applicant are sustainable.

Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.”

5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court with this original petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Annexures A9 and A10 orders, deputation benefits were granted to similarly placed employees as that of the petitioner. The qualification acquired by the petitioner by availing LWA is for promotion and also for the benefit of the public. He rejoined duty immediately after completing the post-graduation in M.D. Anaesthesiology. Hence, he is eligible to get deputation benefit under Rule 91A of Part I of KSR. The Tribunal failed to consider these aspects in their proper perspective while dismissing the original application.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner is relying on Annexures A11 to A13 orders passed by the Government, to claim deputation benefits. Annexures A11 and A12, Government Orders relied on by the petitioner, are general orders. In Annexure A11 to A13 orders, there are certain conditions stipulated for granting deputation benefits. The petitioner has no case that he satisfied those conditions. These aspects were considered in Annexure A16 order dated 29.04.2022 passed by the 1st respondent. In Annexures A9 and A10, Government Orders, the incumbents are from the service quota, whereas the petitioner went for higher studies in the All India Quota. The Tribunal rightly considered these aspects, and hence no interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal.

9. 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.

10. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;

                  "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 a lower court or tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or 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 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 or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.

16. We have perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the materials placed on record. The petitioner was granted LWA under Rule 91A of Part I KSR for three years from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2015, on condition that the period of LWA granted will not be counted for increment, higher grade, pension and accumulation of earned leave. The petitioner availed of this LWA and, after the period of leave, rejoined service. Thereafter, he submitted representation to grant the deputation benefits, stating that it is to acquire the qualification for promotion and public benefit that he went for higher studies.

17. The terms and conditions of deputation in Annexure A11 are as follows:

                  “ TERMS AND CONDITION OF DEPUTATION

                  (i) Candidates will be paid during the period of deputation the pay and allowancе admissible to them for the deputation.

                  (ii) The period of deputation for training shall be treated as duty under rule 12(7) (iii) Part 1, Kerala Service Rules.

                  (iii) The time taken for to and fro journeys for the training will also be treated as part of the period of deputation.

                  (iv) Travelling Allowance will be paid for to and journeys under rule 98 (a) part 11, Kerala Service Rules.

                  (v) Candidates will be paid tuition fee and such other expenses including the expenses for study tours. It t such tours part of the training and are so certified by the head of the Institution in which the training is undergone, during the period of training.

                  (vi) The payment of tuition fee and such other expenses is subject to the satisfactory conduct and performance of the candidates during the training.

                  (vii) Candidates deputed for training shall executed bonds on Kerala government stamp paper agreeing to serve the government for a minimum period as prescribed below on completion of the training failing which they will have to pay to government the entire amount spent by government for the training together with a penalty of Rs.1000 (Rupees one thousand only) by way of liquidated damages. The bonds should be executed before the commencement of the training period.

                  Period of Training Period of obligatory service

                

                  India, the candidate will execute a bond binding himself to serve the government for a minimum period not less than four years on his return from training abroad.

                  (viii) Candidates will not be paid any post-graduate allowance, compensatory allowance or deputation allowance during the period of training.

                  (ix) In the case of trainees whose period of deputation is extended due to their not completing the course within the stipulated time, they will have to execute revised agreement in conformity with the total period of deputation as revised and refixed.

                  (x) Whenever candidates have to prepare and submit a thesis to the respective Institution at the close of the course a maximum of Rs.200 will be paid as allowance for preparation of the thesis.”

18. The terms and conditions in Annexure A12, Government Order dated 27.09.2005, are as follows:

                  “1. Deputation benefit with full pay and allowances are allowed to Government servants to undergo course of study, if Government are fully satisfied that the course is capable of widening their knowledge in a manner likely to improve their abilities as a civil servant and to equip them better in the sphere of their duties and of definite advantage to Government. Accordingly, Government have approved schemes for allowing deputation benefits to College Teachers coming under UGC/AICTE package, Doctors and Para-medical staff under Health Sector, Engineers etc. for higher studies.

                  2. Several requests are now being received from any other categories of employees for allowing deputation benefit with full pay and allowances for undergoing courses/training solely intended to enhance their promotion prospects in the service to which they belong as special rules for their service provide for transfer appointment to higher post, outside their regular line of promotion, to those in the lower categories of post possessing additional qualification. Undergoing any course of study/training for acquiring qualification purely for the betterment of future prospects of employees at Government expense cannot be supported.

                  3. Government therefore wish to clarify that deputation benefit will be allowed only for undergoing course of study/training prescribed for promotion to posts in the regular line of promotion of the post held by the employees and also in cases where approved scheme exists for such deputation. Those who wish to acquire any qualification/training for getting appointment to higher post outside their normal line of promotion by any mode of appointment shall undergo the course on their own accord after availing eligible leave/Leave Without Allowances”.

19. In Annexure A13, Government Order dated 14.08.2017, it is specifically mentioned that those who want to go for higher studies other than on service quota shall pursue the course on their own accord after availing eligible leave /leave without allowance. Though the petitioner is relying on Annexure A11 to A13 Government Orders, he has no claim that he satisfies the conditions stipulated therein.

20. In Annexure A16 order dated 29.04.2022, the Government has considered the claim of the petitioner and found that the deputation benefits granted to the other persons pointed out by the petitioner are persons who are from the service quota.

                  Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to hold the impugned Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by existing supervisory jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.