S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.1036 of 2025 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.P1 order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioners are presently working as Agricultural Officers in the Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department. They joined service as Agricultural Assistant Grade II on 24.02.2007 and 05.03.2007 respectively, and they possess B.Sc degree in Agriculture. The next higher post available to an Agricultural Assistant is appointment by transfer as Agricultural Officer, for which ratio between direct recruitment and by transfer was 85:15. In the year 2008, Annexure A1 Government Order was issued ordering to set apart 2% of the posts of Agricultural Officers in the 15% quota earmarked for promotion from qualified Agricultural Assistants to those Agricultural Assistants having B.Sc degree in Agriculture with 3 years service. Later, the Government issued Annexure A2 Order allowing Graduate Agricultural Assistants to be appointed in the 13% (15%-2%) quota also, in order to solve the crucial administrative difficulties faced by the Department due to scarcity of Agricultural Officers. As a result, the petitioners were appointed provisionally as Agricultural Officers in the year 2012. As per Annexure A6 order, the incumbents who were appointed along with the petitioners were regularised with effect from the dates on which they joined duty as Agricultural Officers. However, Annexure A8 order has been issued regularising the petitioners in the cadre of Agricultural Officer only with effect from 06.10.2023 and 30.11.2024, which is arbitrary and discriminatory. In such circumstances, Annexure A8, to the extent it regularises the petitioners as Agricultural Officers with effect from 06.10.2023 and 30.11.2024, is liable to be interfered with. With these pleadings, the petitioners filed the original application before the Tribunal, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i. To call for the records leading to Annexure A8 and quash the same to the extent it regularizes the applicants as Agricultural Officers only with effect from 06.10.2023 and 30.11.2024 respectively.

                  ii. To direct the respondents to regularize the service of the applicants in the cadre of Agricultural Officers with effect from 04.08.2012 and 19.09.2012 respectively in the light of Annexure A6 order.

                  iii. To declare that the applicants are entitled to be regularized in the cadre of Agricultural Officers with effect from 04.08.2012 and 19.09.2012 respectively.”

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 06.10.2025 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for. To that reply statement, the petitioners filed a rejoinder dated 22.10.2025. Similarly, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 05.11.2025 was filed in the original application.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal by the impugned Ext.P1 order, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 6 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

                  “6. At the time of joining service as Agricultural Assistants, the applicants were Graduates in Agriculture. They are eligible for promotion to the cadre of Agricultural Assistants against the 2% quota earmarked for them vide Annexure- A1 order. It was to face the contingency of shortage of Agricultural Officers, the 1st respondent issued Annexure-A2 order and the 2nd respondent provisionally promoted 24 Agricultural Assistants, including the applicants, as Agricultural Officers. This was a purely temporary arrangement and subject to reversion as and when eligible candidates against the 13% quota are available. The applicants have no claim that they are eligible for appointment against the 13% quota earmarked for Agricultural Assistants not having B.Sc Degree in Agriculture. Their only contention is that they should be given seniority with effect from the date they joined the cadre of Agricultural Officers on a provisional basis, as ordered in Annexure-A6. Ten Agricultural Assistants who were appointed as Agricultural Officers provisionally along with the applicants were subsequently appointed as Agricultural Officers and regularised with effect from the dates they joined the cadre in terms of the provisional promotion. This is in compliance with Annexure-A5 order and based on the select list prepared by the DPC during the year 2019, against the 2% quota. Other than claiming similar benefits, the applicants have not been successful in pointing out that these 10 Agricultural Officers were given regularisation before any vacancy arose in the 2% quota earmarked for them. The applicants have also not been able to point out that there were vacancies in the 2% quota, as on the dates of their joining the provisionally promoted cadre, against which they could have been promoted on a regular basis. They cannot claim seniority against a post which is in excess of the 2% quota earmarked for them. ln the light of the above findings, we do not find the contentions of the applicants as sustainable. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.”

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition.

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

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Annexure A3 order dated 02.08.2012 is the continuation of Annexure A2 order dated 12.06.2012 which directs that the vacancies available in 13% quota will be filled from the qualified Agricultural Assistants having B.Sc. degree in Agriculture and having three years’ service by temporary appointment under Rule 9(a)(i) of Part II of KSS&SSR and remaining vacancies if any through Employment Exchange subject to the condition that these candidates will be reverted back as and when eligibility hands under 13% quota become available for promotion. In Annexure A3 order, provisional transfer and appointment of twenty-four Agricultural Assistants having B.Sc. degree in Agriculture as Agricultural Officers was ordered. Therefore, there were twenty- four vacancies at that time, and the petitioners are Serial Nos.16 and 22 in Annexure A3 order. According to the learned counsel, the claim of the petitioners is limited to the seniority with effect from the date of joining the post of Agricultural Officer in compliance with Annexure A3 order, and the Tribunal ought to have allowed the reliefs sought in the original application.

8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that from Annexures A5 and A6 orders dated 02.09.2017 and 23.11.2019, respectively, it is clear that there were only ten vacancies of Agricultural Officers, and it was considering the aforesaid fact, the Tribunal passed the impugned order.

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 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. We have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and the pleadings and materials on record. We have also appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar as mentioned above. It was to face the contingencies of shortage of Agricultural Officers, the 1st respondent issued Annexure A2 order, and the 2nd respondent, by Annexure A3 order, provisionally promoted twenty-four Agricultural Assistants, including the petitioners, as Agricultural Officers. It was purely a temporary arrangement subject to reversion as and when eligible candidates against 13% quota are available. Ten Agricultural Assistants who were appointed as Agricultural Officers, along with the petitioners, were subsequently appointed as Agricultural Officers and regularised with effect from the dates they joined the cadre. It was in compliance with Annexure A5 order and the select list prepared by the DPC during the year 2019 against the 2% quota earmarked for them. As rightly found by the Tribunal, there is no material to show that these ten officers were given regularisation before any vacancy arose in the aforesaid 2% quota. By relying on the provisional promotion, the petitioners cannot claim seniority against the excess of the quota earmarked for them. We find no illegality or impropriety in the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal.

16. 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 have no hesitation to hold the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The original petition is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.