JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. Respondents 5 and 6 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order to set aside Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in that original application, which was one filed by respondents 1 to 13 herein-applicants, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A6 Government order dated 06.07.2023, in view of the fact that, Annexure A7 order dated 03.03.2015 of the University of Calicut, based on which Annexure A6 order was issued, has already been quashed by this Court in Annexure A8 judgment dated 05.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.21254 of 2023. The applicants have also sought for an order directing respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to remove the name of respondents 5 to 10 and other similarly placed persons, who have not passed the UCG-NET in Sanskrit Traditional Subjects under Code No.73, from Annexure A9 ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission vide notification dated 08.02.2024 and Annexure A10 appointment chart dated 11.03.2024 or any other proceedings/orders/communications issued in connection with the appointment pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 11.12.2019 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit (Sahitya) finding them ineligible for appointment to that post; direct respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps to ensure that only those persons who fulfil the qualifications and eligibility criteria stipulated in Annexure A1 notification are included in the ranked list for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Sanskrit (Sahitya); and direct respondents 1 to 4 not to grant the benefit of exemption from passing the prescribed NET qualification under Note (ii) of Annexure A1 without acquiring PhD Degree in the concerned subject, i.e., Sanskrit (Sahitya). 2. By Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025, the Tribunal allowed O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024. 2. By Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025, the Tribunal allowed O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024. The Tribunal found that as per the stipulations in the University Grants Commission (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2018 (UGC Regulations, 2018), the minimum qualification includes a Master’s Degree in the concerned/relevant/allied subjects, along with the clearing of National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC). UGC Regulations, 2018 stipulate only the minimum qualifications. The post notified for selection and appointment is that of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit (Sahitya) in the Department of Collegiate Education. The Assistant Professor appointed is expected to teach students in the specialised discipline of ‘Sahitya’ in the language of Sanskrit. If the State Government, while formulating its policy and framing the Special Rules, thinks it fit that qualification in the specialised discipline is essential for teaching students studying in a specialised discipline within the language of Sanskrit, it cannot in any manner be termed as a qualification stipulated contrary to or repugnant to the minimum qualifications stipulated in UGC Regulations, 2018. It is well settled through a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts that fixing of any specialised qualification or any higher qualification will not be contrary to the minimum qualifications stipulated by the UGC. The binding nature of the so-called declarations contained in Annexure A3 order dated 25.10.2022 in O.A.(EKM)No.1378 of 2022 and Annexure A4 judgment dated 08.02.2023 in O.P.(KAT)No.38 of 2023 is only against Annexure A2 erratum notification dated 21.04.2022 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, correcting the qualifications (Sl.No.7, Item 1) and including Note (vii) in Annexure A1 notification dated 11.12.2019 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, and there is no declaration made by the Tribunal that Annexure A1 notification issued by the Public Service Commission inviting applications for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit Sahitya is in any way contrary to UGC Regulations, 2018. Based on the findings rendered above, the Tribunal allowed O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 on the following terms, as contained in paragraph 25 of Ext.P11 order; (i) It is declared that candidates possessing qualification of M.A. Degree with 55% marks in Sanskrit, Sahitya (Special) and pass in NET conducted by UGC in the subject of Sanskrit, Sahitya under Code No.73 among the ‘Sanskrit Traditional Subjects’ prescribed by the ‘NET Bureau’; or possessing any equivalent qualification which is declared as equivalent through Government Order, other than Annexure A6 if any issued, alone are eligible to be selected and appointed to the post notified under Annexure A1. (ii) The 3 rd respondent - PSC - is directed to publish revised ranked list instead of Annexure A9, through an Erratum/ Addendum Notification by excluding the candidates who do not possess the qualification stipulated in Annexure A1, as interpreted and declared by this Tribunal hereinabove; and consequently to prepare a revised ‘Advice Chart’ and to withdraw/recall advices, if any, issued in favour of candidates who are not eligible in accordance with the declaration made as above and to advice eligible fresh candidates at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iii) The respondents 1 and 4 are hereby directed to take appropriate steps with respect to the candidates, if any, appointed based on advice already issued by the PSC, with respect to whom the PSC is withdrawing such advice, and shall also take steps to appoint fresh candidates, if any, advised by the PSC, without any further delay from the date receipt of respective intimations/communications in that respect.” 3. On 01.08.2025, when this original petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. Respondents 1 to 13-applicants entered appearance through counsel. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for respondents 14 and 17, the learned Standing Counsel for University Grants Commission for the 15 th respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 16 th respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 18 to 32, returnable within two weeks. By the order dated 01.08.2025, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three weeks. Paragraph 4 of that order reads thus; "4. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 18 to 32, returnable within two weeks. By the order dated 01.08.2025, this Court granted an interim stay for a period of three weeks. Paragraph 4 of that order reads thus; "4. Having considered the preliminary arguments advanced at the Bar on the procedure adopted by the Tribunal, after Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT) No.284 of 2025, as discernible from para (vii) of Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM) No.605 of 2024, we deem it appropriate to stay the operation of the said order for a period of three weeks." The said interim order, which was extended by one month on 19.08.2025, is still in force. 4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents 5 and 6, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 13-applicants, the learned Standing Counsel for University Grants Commission, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission and also the learned Senior Government Pleader. By a separate order in I.A.No.1 of 2025, respondents 18 and 28 were deleted from the party array, at the risk of the petitioners. Despite the service of notice, there is no appearance for the other party respondents. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents 5 and 6 would contend that despite the specific direction contained in Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025, whereby Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was set aside with a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter, the Tribunal passed Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in that original application, without permitting any of the parties to address their arguments. After Ext.P10 judgment of the Division Bench, O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted on 15.07.2025 before the Bench consisting of the Chairman and the Administrative Member. Due to paucity of time, the matter was posted to the next day, i.e., 16.07.2025. On that day, Ext.P11 order was passed by the Tribunal, reiterating Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025, without permitting any of the parties to address their arguments. Due to paucity of time, the matter was posted to the next day, i.e., 16.07.2025. On that day, Ext.P11 order was passed by the Tribunal, reiterating Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025, without permitting any of the parties to address their arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out the specific averment contained in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the statement of facts in this original petition, as to what transpired, before the Tribunal at the time of the passing of Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025 and Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No. 605 of 2024. The averments contained in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the statement of facts in this O.P.(KAT) read thus; ‘8. On 20.11.2024, O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was taken for hearing as item No.601 by the Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Administrative Member (Mr.P.K. Kesavan). The matter was heard at length and treated as disposed of. On the next day, 21.11.2024, it was posted as item No.324 before the very same Bench, and the Hon’ble Chairman started giving dictation in open court when the item was called. On the next day, 22.11.2024, also the matter was posted as item No.324 in the petition list before the same Bench. It is submitted that, entire judgment was not dictated in open court on 22.11.2024 due to lack of time. Later, upon the mentioning from the part of the counsel for the applicants, the O.A(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted as “to be spoken to” on 19.02.2025 as item No.501 before the Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Administrative Member (Mr.Dr.Pradeep Kumar). The counsel for the respondents had pointed out that the matter is posted before a different bench than the bench that heard the matter finally on 20.11.2024 to 22.11.2024. Thus, a judicial order was (proceedings was passed) on 19.02.2025 as follows: "The O.A. was heard and it was ordered as disposed of on 22.11.2024. But before the completion of the order and its pronouncement, the matter was posted again as to be spoken to on today. Heard again. Reserved for orders." A copy of the order dated 19.02.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P8. 9. But before the completion of the order and its pronouncement, the matter was posted again as to be spoken to on today. Heard again. Reserved for orders." A copy of the order dated 19.02.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P8. 9. Though the matter was heard again and reserved for orders on 19.02.2025 by a Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Administrative Member (Mr.Dr.Pradeep Kumar), the judgment was pronounced on 20.05.2025 by the Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Administrative Member (Mr.P.K.Kesavan), allowing the O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024. A copy of the final order dated 20.05.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P9. Ext.P9 was challenged before this Hon’ble Court by filing O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025, which led to the judgment dated 01.07.2025. A copy of the judgment dated 01.07.2025 in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P10. 10. The direction in Ext.P10 is as follows:- “7. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order for reconsideration. The parties are directed to mark their presence before the Tribunal on 15.07.2025. In the result, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, this Original Petition is disposed of.” 11. Thereafter, the O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted on 15.07.2025 before the Hon’ble Tribunal in a Bench consisting of the Hon’ble Chairman and the Hon’ble Administrative Member (Mr.Dr.Pradeep Kumar). Due to paucity of time, the matter was posted to the next day, i.e., 16.07.2025, and on that day the final order was passed reiterating Ext.P9 judgment that too without permitting any of the parties to make their arguments, despite the direction in Ext.P10 judgment as stated above. A copy of the final order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P11. Exhibit P11 is under challenge in this O.P.(KAT). The findings made by the Hon’ble Tribunal in Ext P11 at the beginning to the effect that the O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted on 20.05.2025 and heard by the said bench are incorrect and erroneous. Exhibit P11 is under challenge in this O.P.(KAT). The findings made by the Hon’ble Tribunal in Ext P11 at the beginning to the effect that the O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted on 20.05.2025 and heard by the said bench are incorrect and erroneous. On the said day, it was posted as “For Pronouncement of Orders” at 2 pm, and the order was delivered then and there without any arguments made by the parties in the O.A.’ 6. Though the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 13- applicants has not raised any serious dispute as to the facts stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of facts in O.P.(KAT)No.328 of 2025 as to what transpired before the Tribunal on 15.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 when O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted before the Tribunal in a Bench consisting of the Chairman and the Administrative Member, the submission of the learned counsel is that Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 is one passed after considering the statutory provisions and also the law on the point and therefore, no interference is warranted in the said order of the Tribunal, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 14 and 17, the learned Standing Counsel for University Grants Commission for the 15 th respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 16 th respondent would contend that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal in passing Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024, despite the specific direction contained in Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025 cannot be sustained in law and therefore, Ext.P11 order is liable to be set aside. 8. As already noticed hereinbefore, there is no serious dispute as to the facts stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of facts in O.P.(KAT)No.328 of 2025 as to what transpired before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam on 15.07.2025 and 16.07.2025 when O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 was posted before the Bench consisting of the Chairman and the Administrative Member. The procedure adopted by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 is stated in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts in this O.P.(KAT). The procedure adopted by the Tribunal while passing Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 is stated in paragraph 9 of the statement of facts in this O.P.(KAT). The said order was set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025. In paragraph 6 of Ext.P10 judgment the Division Bench found that since the proceedings dated 19.02.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 (Ext.P8) indicate that the matter was heard by a different quorum, the order dated 20.05.2025 (Ext.P9) could not have been passed by another quorum. Therefore, the Division Bench set aside Ext.P9 order and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the matter. It is thereafter that the Tribunal has chosen to pass Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024, whereby that original application stands allowed in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 25 of that order. 9. A reading of Ext.P9 order dated 20.05.2025 and Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 would show that paragraphs 1 to 25 of Ext.P11 order is nothing but a verbatim reproduction of paragraphs 1 to 25 of Ext.P9 order. At the beginning of Ext.P11 order, the Tribunal has stated in paragraphs (ii) to (vi) as to what transpired before the Tribunal on 22.11.2024, 19.02.2025 and 20.05.2025. In paragraph (vii) of Ext.P11 order, the Tribunal has stated as follows; “(vii) Today, based on the remand of the case for fresh consideration and disposal, the present Bench consisting of the Chairman and Dr.Pradeep Kumar (Administrative Member) considered the matter again. Since the very same Bench had heard the matter in detail on 19.02.2025, the Bench discussed the case elaborately and had arrived at a consensus with clear exchange of opinions and meeting of minds, that no deviation from the findings and decisions in the final order passed earlier is required. Accordingly, it was decided to reiterate the said order and to pronounce it as the final order in the above original application. Accordingly, it was decided to reiterate the said order and to pronounce it as the final order in the above original application. Therefore, the original application is disposed afresh based on the following final order passed;” (underline supplied) A reading of paragraph (vii) of Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 would show that, as stated in paragraph 11 of the statement of facts in this O.P.(KAT), despite the specific direction contained in Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025, the Tribunal passed Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 in that original application, without permitting any of the parties to address their arguments. 10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with 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. 11. 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. 12. In the instant case, Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 is one passed in grave dereliction of duty and in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal committed a manifest error while passing Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025, without following the specific direction contained in Ext.P10 judgment dated 01.07.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.284 of 2025. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to sustain Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024. 13. In the result, this original petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh orders in that original application after affording both sides a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 13. In the result, this original petition is allowed by setting aside Ext.P11 order dated 16.07.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024 and the Tribunal is directed to pass fresh orders in that original application after affording both sides a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It would be open to respondents 1 to 13-applicants to move for an early disposal of O.A.(EKM)No.605 of 2024.