Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicant in O.A. (EKM)No.411 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner filed O.A. (EKM) No.411 of 2025 before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “a. Call for the records leading to Annexure A5 Appointment Chart; Set aside the same;

                  b. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T community as per the Annexure to KS&SSR roster to a reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate belonging to the E/B/T community is available in the Annexure A2 ranked list;

                  c. Declare that the 2nd respondent does not have the authority to convert a Turn reserved for the E/B/T community as per the Annexure to KS & SSR roster to a reservation for LC/AI community when a suitable candidate belonging to LC/AI community is not available in the Annexure A2 ranked list;

                  d.       Declare that MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer (Marma) in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department is entitled to the E/B/T community on the basis of Rule 15 of the KS & SSR;

                  e.       Direct the 2nd respondent to appoint the applicant to MR1- Turn 28 in the post of Medical Officer (Marma) in the Indian Systems of Medicine Department forthwith”.

3. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner is included in the ranked list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short) to the post of Medical Officer (Marma). The petitioner belongs to the Thiyya community. Turn 28 in the reservation roster as per Annexure of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (‘KS&SSR’ for short) part II, belongs to the Ezhava/Billava/Thiyya communities and thus, on the basis of the ranked list, she is entitled to be appointed to that Turn. However, the KPSC, through Annexure A5 appointment chart, arbitrarily converted that turn to the Latin Catholic/Anglo Indian community, stating that it is used to compensate the LC/AI community for an E/B/T candidate appointed on 05.04.1995 to a turn reserved for LC/AI candidates, as per the pre-amended Rule 15 of the KS&SSR. Annexure A5 further states that since there are no LC/AI candidates available in the ranked list, the vacancy is kept unfilled for the NCA Notification for LC/AI. The above action of the KPSC denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires, since, as per the amended Rule 15 (a) of the KS & SSR part II, a vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates belonging to the community to whom the turn belongs. The Note to Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR part II permitting compensating uncompensated turns as on 02.02.2006, read with the main provision, clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in the absence of candidates despite following the steps outlined in Rule 15(a).

4. In the original application, the 2nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 19.05.2025 opposing the reliefs. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 26.05.2025. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by the impugned Ext.P5 order dated 28.05.2025 dismissed the original application. The Tribunal found that the conversion of E/B/T turn to LC/AI turn by the KPSC is on the basis of Note to Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR part II and that the petitioner is deprived of the opportunity to get advised only by the operation of Rules. Paragraphs 5 to 10 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

                  “5. It is an admitted position that turn at MR1 28 is that of EBT candidate. There is no dispute over the fact that the E/B/T derived extra benefit on 05.04.1995, when the turn for LC/AI came, as there was no candidate available in the LC/AI community. As per the pre-amended rules, in the absence of a candidate from one reservation community, that vacancy could be filled up by a candidate belonging to the next reservation community and so on. There was a further provision, as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant, under Rule 15(c) which provided that the benefit of the turn forfeited to a particular community or to a group of community by reason of it being passed over under Sub rules (a) and (b) shall be restored to it, at the earliest possible opportunity, if a suitable candidate from that group or community is available. As contended by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is true that the Note to Rule 15 (a) of KS&SSR, as amended, does not provide that the vacancy lost shall be given back at the earliest possible opportunity, as was provided in Rule 15(c) of the pre- amended Rule. But as contended by the learned Counsel for the PSC, the Note mandates to compensate all uncompensated turns. As long as there is no provision for any passing over available under the rules and it is not possible to fill up the vacancies of one community by another, it cannot be said that compensation of such uncompensated turns need be made only when if candidates are available in a rank list and in their absence, the compensation can wait.

                  6. It is seen that the PSC has acted in accordance with the Circular, only to compensate the turns lost to a community as and when the turn of the community which derived extra benefit. arises by keeping the vacancy unfilled and by issuing NCA notification. Rule 15 (a) does not provide that the compensation can wait till a candidate from a particular community to be compensated becomes available. Rule 15 (a) of Part II KS & SSR including the Note reads as follows:

                  "15. (a) The integrated cycle combining the rotation in clause (c) of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub- rule (2) of rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexure to this Part. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of these rules or in the Special Rules if a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities specified in the Annexure, such vacancy shall be kept unfilled, notified separately for that community or group of communities for that selection year and shall be filled by direct recruitment exclusively from among that community or group of communities. If after re- notification, repeatedly for not less than two times, no suitable candidate is available for selection from the respective community or group of communities, the selection shall be made from available Other Backward Classes 37 candidates. In the absence of Other Backward Classes candidates, the selection shall be made from available Scheduled Castes candidates and in their absence, the selection shall be made from available Scheduled Tribes candidates

                  Explanation.- One 'selection year’ for the purpose of this rule shall be the period from the date on which the rank list of candidates comes into force to the date on which it expires.

                  Note.- All pending uncompensated turns of vacancies such as temporarily passed over, no candidate available and non-joining duty as on the 2nd February. 2006, shall be compensated".

                  7. Rule 15(a) to (c) before amendment stood as follows: "15.(a) The integrated cycle combining the rotation in clause (c) of rule 14 and the sub-rotation in sub-rule (2) of rule 17 shall be as specified in the Annexure to this Part. If a suitable candidate is not available for selection from any particular community or group of communities specified the Annexure, the said community or group shall be passed over and the post shall be filled up by a suitable candidate from the community or group of communities immediately next to the passed over community or group in the said Annexure in the order of rotation. If no suitable candidate is available for selection in any of the above communities or group of communities, selection shall be made from open competition candidates.

                  (b)......

                  (c) The benefit of the turn forfeited to a particular community or to a group of community by reason of it being passed over under sub-rules (a) and (b) shall be restored to it, at the earliest possible opportunity, if a suitable candidate from that particular community or group is available for selection by making adjustments against the claims of the particular community or group that derived the extra benefit by reason of such passing over".

                  The purpose behind the amendment of the Rules from 2.2.2006 and behind the Note is to ensure that there is no extra gain or extra loss for any community, in the matter of reservation in appointments.

                  8. As contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant, it is settled law that the Note cannot be interpreted in a manner contrary to the intent and purpose behind the main provision. In the present case the Note to Rule 15 (a) provides that all pending uncompensated turns of vacancies as on 2.2.2006 shall be compensated. Rule 15 (a) provides that in the absence of candidates belonging to a particular community, it shall be separately re-notified and filled up by issuing NCA notification. As per the unamended rules, there was a provision to fill up uncompensated vacancies or restore the lost/forfeited turns to the community at the earliest opportunity. It cannot be said to that the Note to Rule 15(a) operates in a manner defacing the main provision as contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant happened to be deprived of the opportunity to get advised only by operation of the Rules. It cannot be said that PSC has acted contrary to the Rules. The judgment in Saji's case relied on by the applicant does not apply to the facts of the case.

                  9. At the same time in the judgment in Ranjit's case the Hon'ble High Court held that Note to Rule 15(a) works as a saving clause and that its object is to restore the benefit of the turns lost to a particular community.

                  10. In the circumstances we do not find any illegality in the action of the PSC.

                  Original Application is accordingly dismissed”.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the Tribunal, the petitioner is before this Court with this original petition. The petitioner contends that the finding of the Tribunal is incorrect and is against the scheme of Rule 15(a) of the KS & SSR part II, since the Note to the main provision is only to provide clarification, and it cannot be considered independent of the main provision. If the Note appended to Rule 15(a) is read independently of the said Rule, it will become contradictory to the scheme of the main provision and thus invalid. It is well settled by the Apex Court that the Note appended to the main rule is only for providing clarification and that it will not dilute the rigour of the main provision. Therefore, on reading the provision of Rule 15(a) with its Note, it is clear that if suitable candidates are available in a particular Turn, that turn cannot be used for compensating any uncompensated turns in the pre-amended Rules.

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

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the action of the KPSC denying appointment to the petitioner is ultra vires since as per amended Rule 15(a) of the KS&SSR Part II, a vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates belonging to the community to whom the turn belongs. The note appended to Rule 15(a) permitting compensating uncompensated turns as on 02.02.2006, read with the main provisions, clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in the absence of candidates, despite following the steps outlined in Rule 15(a). The note appended to the main Rule is only for providing clarification, and it will not dilute the rigour of the main provision. If the Note in Rule 15(a) is read independently, it will become contrary to the main provision and thus invalid.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC would submit that the petitioner has not raised any challenge against Rule 15(a) of KS&SSR Part II. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the contentions and arrived at a proper finding and hence no interference is needed in the impugned order.

9. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported the order of the Tribunal and pointed out the judgment of this Court in Ranjith C.R. v. High Court of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 759], in support of her arguments, which was referred to in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

10. 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.

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. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in V.B Prasad v. Manager, P.M.D. U.P. School [2007 (2) KHC 534] and that of this Court in Maidhily.M v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KHC 203] and argued that note to a provision is merely explanatory in nature and the rigour of the main provision cannot be diluted by the note.

17. The contention of the petitioner herein is that the action of the KPSC denying appointment to her is arbitrary and discriminatory. As per Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR Part II, the vacancy attached to a turn can be filled only with candidates belonging to that particular community to which the turn belongs. According to the petitioner, Note to Rule 15(a) of KS & SSR Part II would be contrary to the purpose behind those provisions, and it cannot evade the main provision. The reading of the Note with the main provision clarifies that such compensation can be effected only in the absence of candidates despite following the steps outlined in Rule 15(a). Moreover, even if Note to Rule 15(a) is read with the pre-amended provision of Rule 15, such compensation can be effected only if suitable candidates are available in a particular turn. Therefore, the petitioner who falls in the turn 28 reserved for the E/B/T community is entitled to be appointed.

18. The stand of the respondents is that the KPSC was not converting any reservation turn to another as averred by the petitioner. It was actually restoring the lost turn to the original community, which was passed over previously in the year 1995. Rule 15 of KS&SSR Part II clearly entrusts the KPSC to compensate all pending, uncompensated turns of vacancies which were passed over, due to non-availability of a particular reserved community as on 02.02.2006. Hence, MR I 28 E/B/T TPO turn was restored to LC/AI. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in these actions on the part of the KPSC. It is the specific stand of the respondents that the Note to Rule 15(a) of KS&SSR Part II has to be read with the pre-amended Rule 15(c) which says that the benefit of the turn forfeited to a particular community or to a group of community should be restored to it at the earliest possible opportunity if a suitable candidate from that particular community or group is available for selection by making adjustments against the claims of the particular community or group that derived extra benefit by reason of such passing over. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it will be the continuation of the pre- amended system of passing over.

19. The aforementioned contentions of the parties were appreciated by the Tribunal. As found by the Tribunal, the Note to Rule 15(a) of K.S&S.S.R. Part II provides that all pending uncompensated turns of vacancies as on 02.02.2006 shall be compensated. Rule 15 (a) provides that in the absence of candidates belonging to a particular community, it shall be separately re-notified and filled up by issuing NCA notification. As per the unamended rules, there was a provision to fill up uncompensated vacancies or restore the lost/forfeited turns to the community at the earliest opportunity. It cannot be said that the Note to Rule 15(a) operates in a manner that deviates from the principles of the main provision. As found by the Tribunal, the petitioner happened to be deprived of the opportunity to get advised only by operation of the Rules. It cannot be said that PSC has acted contrary to the Rules. Therefore, the judgments in V.B Prasad [2007 (2) KHC 534] and Maidhily.M [2024 (5) KHC 203] are not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

                  Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the impugned order of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which warrants the interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.