Muralee Krishna S., J.

1. The applicant in O.A.No.1175 of 2018 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.P7 order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. The petitioner-applicant is a member of the scheduled caste community. She entered service in the Urban Affairs Department as a Lower Division Clerk/Bill Collector on 08.11.1991. Her probation in that cadre was declared as satisfactorily completed with effect from 31.03.1994. She passed the prescribed departmental test for promotion in June 2005 and was given promotion to the cadre of Senior Clerk on 12.01.2006.

                  2.1.    In the original application, the petitioner pleaded that Rule 13A(1)(a) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (‘KS&SSR’ for short) provides that where a pass in a special or departmental test is prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, grade or post may be appointed thereto temporarily. Rule 13A(2) provides that if an incumbent appointed under clause (a) of sub- rule (1) does not pass the test within three years from the date of such appointment, he shall be reverted to the class, category, grade or post from which he was appointed. Rule 13AA provides that the Government may, by order, exempt for a specific period, any member belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and already in service from passing the test referred to in Rule 13 or 13A of the said Rules. Rule 13(B) provides that orders exempting members of the Scheduled Castes and of the Scheduled Tribes issued under Rule 13AA shall be deemed always to have been applicable to members of the Scheduled Caste and of the Scheduled Tribes who entered service after the said date also.

                  2.2.    According to the petitioner, the Government, in exercise of powers under Rule 13AA, has issued GO(Ms)No.22/77/PD dated 13.01.1972 giving temporary exemption for two years from passing the test to those SC/ST employees who entered the service as on 31.12.1985 or before. Later, as per the Government order dated 28.11.1997, it was clarified that the benefit of the test exemption period is applicable not only for the promotion test but also for the probation test. It was stipulated that the benefit was not extended to those who entered the service on or after 01.01.1986. The above stipulation has created certain confusion regarding temporary promotion to SC/ST employees who have not passed the promotion and probation test in view of Rule 13, for a long period and thereby, temporary promotions of SC/ST employees have not been effected for a long time.

                  2.3. According to the petitioner, as per Annexure A3 circular dated 24.02.2012, the Government clarified that the exemption granted as per the aforesaid orders is applicable to the members of the SC/ST community who entered service on or after 01.01.1986, who have satisfactorily completed their probation period, but not passed a promotion test and those employees are entitled to get test exemption qualification for a period of three years from the date on which they would have been promoted, had they passed the test in time. It was further directed to review the cases of those employees who were not given the benefit and to grant them seniority and promotion on their applications. Pursuant to Annexure A3 circular, the 2nd respondent, as per Annexure A4 circular dated 19.09.2012, required all Municipal Secretaries to get applications from those SC/ST employees who are entitled to get the benefit of Annexure A3 Government circular for exemption from the test qualification for three years.

                  2.4. The petitioner submitted application for retrospective promotion and reassignment of seniority by granting an exemption from the test qualification. The petitioner is entitled to get retrospective promotion in the cadre of UDC with effect from the date on which her immediate junior Sri.P.Anil Kumar was promoted in the year 2001. However, as per Annexure A5 order dated 11.01.2016, the 2nd respondent reassigned the seniority of the petitioner in between serial Nos.74 and 75, i.e., between Sri.N.A.Jayakumar and Sri.S.Rajesh who were promoted only in the year 2003. There is no reasoning for taking the year 2003 as a criteria and to place the petitioner between Serial Nos.74 and 75 in the gradation list. However, the petitioner did not challenge Annexure A5 order and was satisfied with the reassignment of seniority.

                  2.5. The petitioner was later promoted to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector as per Annexure A6 order dated 15.02.2016, reckoning her reassigned seniority pursuant to Annexure A5. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent as per Annexure A7 order dated 20.03.2017 of the 2nd respondent. As per Annexure A8 proceedings dated 07.12.2017, published by the 2nd respondent, in the provisional gradation list of superintendents as on 01.02.2017, the petitioner’s name is included as Serial No.172.

                  2.6. In the meantime, certain incumbents submitted representation before the 2nd respondent, challenging the reassignment of seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Clerk as per Annexure A5 order. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why she shall not be reverted to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector. To that show cause notice, the petitioner submitted Annexure A9 explanation dated 27.07.2017 before the 2nd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent has issued Annexure A1 order dated 21.05.2018 reassigning the seniority of the petitioner in the cadre of Senior Clerk with effect from the date of her original promotion on 12.01.2006 and restored the original seniority as Serial No.357 in the gradation list of Senior Clerks and accordingly her promotion to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector was reassigned with effect from 31.03.2017 and her promotion to the cadre of superintendent has been cancelled and reverted to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector and she was posted in Kayamkulam Municipality. The petitioner then submitted Annexure A11 representation dated 30.06.2018 before the 2nd respondent, requesting to cancel Annexure A1 order and to retain her in the post of superintendent without losing her seniority and to give her transfer as per the queue list. Thereafter, by contending that the aforesaid act of the 2nd respondent as arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act to quash Annexure A1 order.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 24.09.2018 was filed, opposing the relief sought for by the petitioner. Paragraphs 11 to 13 of that reply statement read thus:

                  “11. As per Rule 13A(1)(a) and 13A(2) of part ll of the Kerala state and Subordinate Service Rules, the applicant would have been promoted to the senior clerk category on a condition that if she does not pass the tests within the stipulated time, she would be reverted. As such, she should have obtained the test qualification before 07.02.2004 ie., 3 years from the date of promotion of her immediate junior. But, the applicant had acquired the test qualification for promotion only on 06/2005. Hence, she is not eligible for the benefits stipulated in the Circular No. 8130/P&AR.C3/2010/P&ARD dated 24.02.2012. It is submitted that the applicant had not requested to consider her for promotion under rule 13A(2)of part II of KS&SSR, 1958, at the time when she had not obtained the requisite test qualification. It is further submitted that, if the applicant had been given promotion when she has not passed the requisite departmental test, she should have obtained the said test qualification within three years from the date of such promotion. There was no such instances in this matter.

                  12. Since it had been found that the seniority of the applicant was assigned erroneously, this respondent had cancelled the retrospective promotion given to the applicant thereby re-assigned her seniority in the cadre of Senior Clerk with effect from 12.01.2006, (ie., with effect from the date of her original promotion as Senior Clerk) and restored original position as Sl.No.317 in the gradation list of Senior Clerks. Accordingly, her promotion to the cadre of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector was reassigned with effect from 31.03.2017, and her promotion to the category of Superintendent has been cancelled, by reverting to the cadre of HC/RI and she was posted in Kayamkulam Municipality as HC/RI, vide Annexure A1. Subsequently, the applicant had been relieved of her duties from Kothamangalm municipality with effect from 28.06.2018 itself. It is further stated that as per interim order dated 03.07.2018 in O.A 1175 of 2018 Hon'ble Tribunal has stayed the operation of Annexure A1 (Order No.E3-11403/17 Dated: 21.05.2018). As per the direction received from the Hon'ble Tribunal, this respondent had reinstated the applicant with effect from 03.07.2018 vide order No.E3- 11403/17 Dated: 19.7.20] 8.

                  13. It is humbly submitted that as the staff of the Postal Department had conducted a nationwide strike on the month of May, 2018, several communications were pending in this office for despatch at that time. This was the reason for the delay in sending Annexure A1 order to the applicant. Hence, there is no malafide intention on the part of this respondent in the matter, as alleged by the applicant. It is humbly submitted that this respondent had acted only in accordance with the existing statutory provisions, by issuing Annexure A1 order.”

4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by impugned Ext.P7 order, dismissed the original application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is now before this Court with this original petition.

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

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the actual promotion of the petitioner’s immediate junior Sri.N.A.Jaykumar was on 10.07.2003. Therefore, the petitioner is also eligible to get a promotion as a Senior Clerk with effect from 03.09.2002. The petitioner who passed the departmental test in the year 2005, is very well eligible to retain seniority as per Annexures A5 and A8 orders and therefore Annexure A1 order reverting her to the post of Head Clerk/Revenue Inspector is to be quashed. The department has failed to give exemption in time. Later, the department cannot take the benefit of its wrong or illegality. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to refix her seniority as per Annexure A5 order by getting a test exemption for three years. The Tribunal has not considered the doctrine of sit back properly. The petitioner was given seniority as early as on 11.01.2016. Thereafter, the promotions were also effected considering this seniority and she has discharged the duty in the promotion post for a considerable period. But Annexure A1 order was issued only on 21.05.2018. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and Annexure A1 order is liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that as per Rule 13A(1)(a) of Part II KS&SSR, a member in a Government service belonging to SC/ST who is otherwise qualified for promotion can be temporarily promoted without acquiring the departmental test qualification. However, Rule 13A(2) provides that if a person so promoted, granting temporary exemption, fails to acquire the required qualifications within three years from the date of appointment, he/she shall be reverted to the post from which promotion was granted. Rule 13AA of the Rules empowers the Government to exempt any member belonging to SC/ST for a specified period from passing such test. The immediate junior of the petitioner was promoted on 07.02.2001. But the petitioner did not claim exemption as provided under Rule 13A(1)(b) of the Rules at that time. After acquiring the test qualification, in the month of June, 2005, the petitioner was promoted as Senior Clerk on 12.01.2006. Later by revising the case of employees belonging to SC/ST category who entered service on or after 01.01.1986 as per Annexures A3 and A4 circulars, Annexure A5 order was issued granting retrospective promotion to the petitioner by placing her in between Rank No.74 and 75. The incumbents at rank Nos.74 and 75 were promoted in the year 2003.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

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 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.

13. 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.

14. From the pleadings in the original application itself, it is clear that the petitioner has not challenged her placement in between Serial Nos.74 and 75 in Annexure A5 order. Though in the original petition she claims that she is eligible to get promotion as a Senior Clerk with effect from 03.09.2002, such a claim was not raised by the petitioner at the relevant time or in the original application. The pleadings in the original application would show that the petitioner is satisfied with the reassignment of the seniority as per Annexure A5 order. It is appropriate to extract the relevant portion of Rule 13A and Rule 13AA of Part II of KS&SSR for a better appreciation of the contentions of the petitioner. The said Rule read thus:

                  “13A. Special and Departmental Tests.-Temporary exemption for promotion.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 13,-

                  (a)      Where a pass in a special or departmental test is prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may be appointed thereto temporarily.

                  (b)      Where a pass in a special or departmental test is newly prescribed by the Special Rules of a service for any category, grade or post therein or in any class thereof, a member of a service who has not passed the said test but is otherwise qualified and suitable for appointment to such class, category, grade or post may, within 2 years of the introduction of the test, be appointed thereto temporarily. Provided that Special or departmental test mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) above shall mean obligatory departmental tests specified by the Special Rules of a service for promotion/ by transfer appointment to any category, grade or post therein and shall not include obligatory departmental tests specified by the Special Rules for satisfactory completion of probation in any category, grade or post therein.

                  (2) If a member of a service appointed under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) does not pass a test within 3 years from the date of such appointment or when the said test also involves practical training, within three years after the first chance to undergo such training after such appointment, or if a member of service appointed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) does not pass the test within two years from the date of introduction of the said test or if the said test also involves practical training, within two years after the first chance to undergo such training after the introduction of the said test, he shall be reverted to the class, category, grade or post from which he was appointed and shall not again be eligible for appointment under clause (a) or (b) as the case may be, of sub-rule (1):

                  Provided that the period of temporary exemption allowed under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be extended by 3 years in the case of a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

                  13AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Government may, by order, exempt for a specified period, any member or members, belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, and already in service, from passing the tests referred to in rule 13 or rule 13A of the said Rules:

                  Provided that this rule shall not be applicable to tests prescribed for purposes of promotion of the executive staff below the rank of Sub-Inspectors belonging to the Police Department.”

                  (Underline supplied)

15. In the original application, the petitioner has pleaded that there is no reason for assigning her the seniority in between serial Nos.74 and 75. The immediate junior of the petitioner namely, Sri.Anil Kumar, was promoted on 07.02.2001. A pleading to that effect is incorporated in the reply statement filed by the 2nd respondent. It was noting the seniority of the petitioner as immediately before Sri.Anil Kumar, by Annexure A1 order, her seniority was fixed with effect from 07.02.2001, the date on which her immediate junior was promoted. The petitioner has no claim that if she was actually promoted on 07.02.2001, she would have acquired the test qualification before 07.02.2004 as prescribed under Rule13A(2) of Part II of KS&SSR. Therefore, going by the relevant provisions in KS&SSR, as extracted above, since the petitioner has not acquired the test qualification before 07.02.2004, it cannot be said that there is any illegality in Ext.P7 order. The Tribunal considered these aspects in its proper perspective in the impugned order. Paragraphs 12 to 18 of the said order read thus:

                  “12. It is stated in the reply statement that there were certain complaints regarding assignment of seniority to the applicant and the matter was re-examined. It was found that one Sri Anilkumar was the immediate junior of the applicant and that he was promoted on 07.02.2001. Para 10 of the affidavit of the second respondent filed along with MA No.1535 of 2018 reads as follows:

                  "10. As per Rule 13A(1)(a) and 13A(2) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, the applicant would have been promoted to the senior clerk category on a condition that if she does not pass the tests within the stipulated time, she would be reverted. As such, she should have obtained the test qualification before 07.02.2004 ie., 3 years from the date of promotion of her immediate junior. But, the applicant had acquired the test qualification for promotion only on 06/2005. Hence, she is not eligible for the benefits stipulated in the Circular No.8130/P&AR.C3/2010/P&ARD dated 24.02.2012".

                  13. The applicant could not effectively dispute these averments. Though the applicant was entitled to the benefits of temporary exemption she can claim the same only with effect from 07.02.2001 when her immediate junior was promoted. On such promotion she ought to have obtained the test qualification before 07.02.2004, failing which she should have been reverted as provided under Rule 13A(2) of the Rules. Therefore it is very clear that the applicant is not entitled to the benefits of Annexure A3 and A4 Circulars which are intended to give retrospective promotion to those who had acquired qualifications within three years from the date on which their turn for promotion fell due. It is well settled in the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Jayakumar G. Vs. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KHC 763) that the date of promotion on temporary exemption cannot be postponed and it is on the date of occurrence of the vacancy to which his immediate junior was promoted. As the immediate junior of the applicant was promoted on 07.02.2001, that is the only date on which she could claim the benefit of Rule 13A of the Rules and she should have passed the test before 07.02.2004.

                  14. But Sri.Fathahudeen, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that Annexure A5 could not be cancelled after a long time and Annexure Al order is bad for this reason. He also relied on the judgment in K.S.E.B. Vs. Sasidharan (2020 (3) KLT 514). He contended that two promotions were granted to the applicant on the strength of the date assigned to her in Annexure A5 order and there were no challenge against the same. But it is evident from the uncontroverted averment in the reply statement that there were representations against the assignment of seniority to the applicant and notice had been issued to her. It is admitted by the applicant that notice proposing cancellation of Annexure A5 had been issued to her and she had submitted Annexure A9 reply to the same.

                  15. It is also relevant to note here that though Annexure A5 order is dated 11.01.2016 Annexures A6 and A7 orders of promotions were issued only on 15.03.2016 and 20.03.2017. The notice proposing cancellation of Annexure A5 appears to have been issued without further delay since Annexure A9 reply to the same is seen to have been submitted on 27.07.2017. Therefore her contentions based on the sit back principles will not help the applicant. It is to press this contention that the learned Counsel for the applicant relied on K.S.E.B. Vs Sasidharan (supra). The above judgement makes specific reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in R.K.Mudgal Vs R.P.Singh (AIR 1986 SC 2086). Considering the above judgment the Supreme Court has held in Shiba Shanker Mohapathra Vs State of Orissa (2010 (12) SCC 471) that "in K.R.Mudgal (supra), this court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus 3 to 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority". Here in this case Annexure A5 order dated 11.01.2016 is cancelled by giving a notice at least in July 2017 and the applicant has replied to the same on 27.07.2017. This period of about one and a half year is not sufficient to presume long delay to raise a contention on sit back principles. Applicant is not entitled to get the support of the sit back principles.

                  16. Learned Government Pleader submits that the temporary exemption under Rules 13A of the Rules can be availed only from the date on which the immediate junior was promoted and it cannot be postponed to any other date. The period of three years commences from the said date and no employee belonging to SC/ST can continue in the promoted post beyond that period without acquiring the qualification. Allowing a temporary promotee without qualification to continue beyond the said period would result in denying the rights of another rightful claimant for promotion. He also cited an order of this Tribunal in O.A.No.142 of 2018. Para 8 of the order reads as follows: "8. It is also relevant in this context to notice that when temporary exemption is granted to an employee belonging to SC/ST, who has not acquired the test qualifications and he is promoted, legitimate promotion is denied to a qualified junior. But the exemption is a statutory right conferred on the member of a SC/ST. The conferment of the benefit to the employees belonging to SC/ST is subject to the condition that he would be reverted on his failure to acquire the qualification within three years. If an employee, who is promoted invoking Rule 13A of KS & SSR fails to acquire qualification within three years, the qualified junior gets a right to replace him. Therefore the claim of a member belonging to SC/ST that he may be allowed to continue beyond the statutory period provided under Rule 13A would result in denial of the rights of another employee who had acquired the qualifications. Therefore, any person promoted by availing temporary exemption provided under Rule 13A of KS&SSR is bound to be reverted on expiry of three year period if he could not pass the required examination. In such circumstances, Annexure A7 order directing reversion of the applicant with effect from 1.04.2013 does not suffer from any illegality."

                  17. In this case the applicant's immediate junior was promoted on 07.02.2001. That is the only date on which the applicant can claim temporary exemption and the period of exemption would expire on 07.02.2004. She did not acquire qualification within that time and even if she was promoted she would have been reverted on 07.02.2004. She was actually promoted on 12.01.2006. She can claim seniority only with effect from the said date. 18. There is no merit in the contentions of the applicant that had she been promoted on 07.02.2001 she would have passed the test within three years. She did not make any such claim when her junior was promoted on 07.02.2001. She made a claim only on the basis of Annexure A3 Circular which was issued only in 2012. Applicant herself has admitted that there is no reason to grant her promotion with effect from 2003 as was done in Annexure A3.”

16. From the above extracted portion of the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the claim of sit back was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal also. However, the Tribunal found that such a claim cannot be raised by the petitioner since she was promoted only on 12.01.2006 and immediately within a short span of one and a half years, the said order was cancelled by issuing a notice. Therefore, a reasonable period of three to four years mentioned by the Apex Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa [(2010) 12 SCC 471] cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner. As rightly found by the Tribunal, allowing a temporary promotee without qualification to continue beyond the period permitted as per the Rules would result in denying the right of another rightful claimant for promotion.

17. 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 interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

                  In the result, this original petition stands dismissed.