Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicants in O.A. No.2006 of 2024 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioners filed O.A. No.2006 of 2024 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(i) Issue a direction to the 3rd Respondent to consider the rank holders’ case leniently, and in the interest of justice, and in consideration of Annexures A7 and A7(a) to effect extension of Annexure A1 Rank List No.02/2022/ER-XIII for a minimum period of 6 months with effect from the date of its expiry, 02.01.2025. Annexures A1, A7 and A7(a) and pass orders extending the rank list Annexure A1 (Rank List No.02/2022/ER-XIII) for a minimum period of 6 months from the expiry date, i.e., on 02.01.2025, in consideration of prolonged deprivation of chances of appointments of the applicants  as  Assistant  Insurance  Medical  Officers  in Insurance Medical Services Department.

                  (ii)      Issue a direction to the 2nd respondent (Director, Insurance Medical Services Department) and the 1st respondent (State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Labour & Skill Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram) to put an end to the practice of suppressing the vacancy positions in the department and non-reporting of it to the PSC henceforth. Also, issue a direction to cancel all the appointments made in the department arbitrarily and post in place, candidates from Annexure A 1.

                  (iii)     Such other directions or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the interests of justice, particularly of the principles of natural justice and taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, and in view of the arbitrary appointments made in violation of norms, rules and established principles”.

3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the Petitioners are ranked 198th and 225th in the ranked list No.02/2022/ER-XIII published by the Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short), for the post of Assistant Insurance Medical Officers, in the Department of Insurance Medical Services. Though the rank list came into effect from 03.01.2022, vacancies were filled through Employment Exchanges and walk-in interviews, arbitrarily, overlooking the rank list. The petitioners had been waiting for appointment from the rank list since the time the rank list was published. The respondents have failed to ensure appointments in accordance with the PSC rank list. Even though the petitioners could have secured appointment within 6-8 months of publishing the rank list, even after waiting for 3 years, they were not considered for appointment. The petitioners, therefore, filed the original application.

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 01.01.2025 dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 2 to 4 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

                  “2. Learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC points out that, all the vacancies reported have been advised. It is also submitted that, no specific reason which is enumerated in Rule 13 of the Rules of Procedure of KPSC has been made out, which will necessitate a decision, whether the validity of the ranked list has to be extended or not. No such request has also been received from the Government so far.

                  3. Learned Government Pleader submits that all the vacancies available have been reported to the KPSC.

                  4. Annexure A1 ranked list is due to expire on 02.01.2025. Other than vague statements that large number of vacancies remain unfilled, the applicants have not been able to produce any evidence in support of their contention that such vacancies exist. In the absence of any such proof, this Tribunal is not in a position to issue any directions on a ranked list, which is valid only till 02.01.2025.

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. Though the original petition was filed on 31.07.2025, it was returned due to some defects. Later, the petitioners re-presented the original petition with C.M. Appl No.1 of 2025 to condone the delay of 72 days in re-presenting the same. By the order dated 13.11.2025, we allowed that C.M. Application and the Registry was directed to number the original petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that while dismissing the original application, the Tribunal did not consider the contentions of the petitioners in their proper perspective. The order passed by the Tribunal is a cryptic one, passed without properly analysing the materials on record.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC pointed out that the impugned order was passed on 01.01.2025, and the ranked list expired on 02.01.2025. The present original petition was filed only on 31.07.2025, much after the dismissal of the original application. By relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission [2007 (2) KHC 943], the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted by revalidating the expired ranked list.

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. In K. Thulaseedharan [2007 (2) KHC 943], the Apex Court held thus:

                  “10. The 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules relied upon clearly gives an indication that the power available thereunder could be exercised only in the case of a ranked list which is still subsisting or the life of which is still continuing. The words 'the Commission shall have the power to keep alive the Ranked Lists which are normally due to expire during the said period' (emphasis supplied) clearly show that it is a question of keeping alive until a future date, of a live list, the term of which is to expire shortly. The power under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules cannot be made use of to revalidate a time expired ranked list. The two instances pointed out by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants where the Public Service Commission had done it, could not be justified legally in the light of the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules. They must be treated as aberrations. They cannot form the foundation of any right. In this situation, we are satisfied that there is no justification in interfering with the decision of the High Court since by 03.04.2004, when the notification extending the validity of the lists was issued, the validity of the list in question had expired and the same could not be revived in alleged exercise of power under the 5th proviso to Rule 13 of the Rules.     (Emphasis supplied)

16. We have carefully perused the materials on record and the impugned order of the Tribunal. The petitioners are seeking relief in respect of Annexure A1 ranked list for the post of Assistant Insurance Medical Officers in the Insurance Medical Services, which came into effect from 03.01.2022. The ranked list expired on 02.01.2025. By noting that the petitioners have not produced any evidence in support of their contention that several vacancies are available in the department, the Tribunal dismissed the original application.

17. Viewed in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we are of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of the Tribunal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.