Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicants No.4 and 6 in O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P9 order dated 21.10.2025 in that original application and also Ext.P11 order dated 02.12.2025 in R.A.(EKM) No.30 of 2025, passed by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners, along with respondents 33 to 36, filed O.A.(EKM) No.1757 of 2022 before the Tribunal, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “i. Set aside Annexure A4 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary. ii.Declare that educational qualification of Field Worker stipulated in the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service, 1966, i.e. “Should have passed standard VII and should not have acquired Graduation” would not apply to the selection process pursuant to Annexure A1.

                  iii.       To set aside the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service, 1966 and Annexure A5 to the extent to which it imposed the qualification “Should have passed standard VII and should not have acquired Graduation” with respect to field worker in Department of Health Service.

                  iv.      Declare that the applicants are eligible to be included in the shortlist as well as ranked lists pursuant to Annexure A1.

                  v.       Direct the respondents 4 to 8 to continue the selection process as per the qualification stipulated in Annexure A1 and to include the applicants in the shortlist and ranked list to be published on the basis of their merit.

                  vi.      Direct the respondents 4 to 8 to issue advice in favour of the applicants and the respondents 1 to 3 and 9,10 to appoint the applicants as Field Worker under the 2nd respondent in Malappuram, Thrissur and Ernakulam districts respectively”.

3. According to the petitioners and their co-applicants, they are the candidates who applied for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department, pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 31.12.2019 issued by the 5th respondent Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’ for short). The selection was district-wise. Respondents 33 to 35 applied in Malappuram district, 1st petitioner and respondent No.36 applied in Thrissur district, and the 2nd petitioner applied in Ernakulam district. As per Annexure A1 notification, the qualification for the post is that the candidate must have studied up to VIIIth standard or it’s equivalent. After the completion of preliminary and main examinations, the KPSC issued Annexure A4 erratum notification dated 12.10.2022, amending the qualification prescribed in Annexure A1, by changing the qualification as the candidate should have passed VIIth standard and should not have acquired graduation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid erratum notification, the petitioners, along with respondents 33 to 36 filed the original application as mentioned above.

4. In the original application, on behalf of respondents 4 to 8, a reply statement dated 11.04.2023 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought by the petitioners and the other applicants therein. To that reply statement, the applicants in the O.A. filed a rejoinder dated 15.06.2023, producing therewith Annexure A7 document. On behalf of the 1st respondent also a reply statement dated 19.08.2023 was filed in the original application, producing therewith Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the original application along with O.A.(EKM) Nos.1785 of 2022 and 331 of 2025 filed by some similarly placed persons and by the impugned Ext.P9 order dated 21.10.2025 dismissed O.A. (EKM)No.1785 of 2022 and 1757 of 2022. The Tribunal disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.331 of 2025, with a direction to the KPSC to proceed in accordance with the erratum notification and in accordance with law.

5. The petitioners and respondents 33 to 36 thereafter filed a review application as R.A.(EKM) No.30 of 2025 before the Tribunal claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 21.10.2025. By Ext.P11 order dated 02.12.2025, the Tribunal dismissed the review application.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2025 passed in O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 and also the order dated 02.12.2025 in R.A.(EKM)No.30 of 2025, the petitioners are now before this Court with the present original petition.

7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents 13 to 25.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department continues to be governed solely by the G.O.(MS)No.213/73/Health dated 27.07.1973 which prescribes pass in Standard VIII as the qualification and treats the post as a distinct category outside the Kerala Last Grade Service. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the qualification introduced through Annexure A5 that the candidate should not have acquired graduation is vague, arbitrary and unconstitutional, which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Annexure A4 order was issued by the KPSC in complete violation of Rule 15A of the Rules of Procedure of the KPSC. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the nature of the duties, physical fitness requirements, recruitment process and pay structure of Field Workers are distinct from the Kerala Last Grade Service. In such circumstances, according to the learned Senior Counsel, an amendment to Annexure A5 Special Rules will lead to over-inclusion. The qualification of the petitioners cannot be considered as overqualification, since they possess the minimum required qualification. If Annexures A4 and A5 are accepted, a person who appeared for the graduation examination but has not passed and possesses only the VIIth standard qualification can apply for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department, and at the same time, a person passed the graduation will not be able to apply for the post.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for KPSC would submit that Annexure A5 Special Rules came into force with effect from 04.06.2016. Since Annexure A1 notification was issued not in consonance with the qualification prescribed in Annexure A5 Special Rules, by way of Annexure A4 erratum notification, the qualification for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department was modified by the KPSC. This aspect was fully considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order and found that the change in the qualification prescribed in Annexure A4 erratum notification was in consonance with the qualifications prescribed in Annexure A5 Special Rules and hence will not come under the mischief of violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the ground of overinclusion now contended by the petitioners was not taken in the original application.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that by G.O.(MS)No.21/2011/P&ARD dated 01.07.2011 the Government have modified the general qualification for the post of Last Grade Servants in various departments and vide Annexure A5 notification, Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service were amended retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2011. Hence, the said qualification is a mandatory requirement for any KPSC notification issued for the post of Last Grade Servants on or after 01.07.2011. The Field Worker in the Health Services Department is a post included in the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Services in Rule 1 category 7. The Government holds the constitutional right to fix the qualifications for the post in the civil service suitably. Therefore, there is no ground to challenge Annexures A4 and A5. The Tribunal rightly appreciated these aspects, and hence no interference is needed to the said order.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents 13 to 25 fully supported the impugned orders of the Tribunal and argued that the classification based on the qualification prescribed for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department is a reasonable classification coming under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India. A Government order cannot have overriding effect over the rules, and hence the contentions of the petitioners have no merit.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16.    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.

17. 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.

18. From the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 21.10.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 and connected original applications, and also from the order dated 02.12.2025 in R.A.(EKM)No. 30 of 2025 in that original application by the Tribunal, it is evident that the contentions now raised by the parties in this original petition were appreciated by the Tribunal. Though the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P State Wakf Board [(2022) SCC Online SC 159] and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court [(2025) 2 SCC 1] in support of the contention that the KPSC cannot deviate from the qualification originally notified, midway of selection, the Tribunal in paragraph 10 and 13 of the impugned Ext.P9 order answered those contentions as under:

                  “10. In the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak’s case (supra) the Apex Court was considering the correctness of the judgment in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 512] regarding the principle of changing the rules of the game in the midst of selection. Much reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the applicant to paragraph 14 and 15 of the said judgment, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has discussed the doctrine prescribing change of rules midway. It is stated that the rule is against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 16 require that State is bound to act fairly and in a transparent manner and public authorities shall be accountable for their representations. As observed therein, the candidates participating in a recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the process of selection would be fair and non-arbitrary. The doctrine of legitimate expectation lays emphasis on predictability and consistency in decision making and evolved to include the principles of good administration and good administration require that such decisions must withstand the test of consistency, transparency and predictability in order to avoid being regarded as arbitrary. But the legitimate expectation of the applicants in this case happened to be on the basis of an erroneous notification contrary to the rules governing the post. As long as the Special Rules provide a different qualification than the one notified and applicants are disqualified even to submit application, they cannot seek any right on the basis of such expectations. The dictum laid down in the said judgment would not apply to the facts of the case.

                  xxx     xxx     xxx

                  13. The contention of the applicant relying on R.15A of KPSC Rules of Procedure that PSC does not have the authority to issue erratum notification in order to change the qualification for selection to the post is not sustainable, as the erratum notification was issued only to be in tune with the Special Rules. In the judgment in A.P.State Wakf Board’s case (supra) relied on, the question was relating to an erratum notification in the Official Gazette of the State of Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board relating to service Inam lands. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the erratum notification was nothing but a fresh notification altogether whereas erratum was only a correction of mistake and only arithmetical and clerical mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification could not be enlarged by virtue of an erratum notification. There the extent of land notified as Wakf property was corrected to include a large number of lands under the guise of an erratum notification. It was held that it was not a case of clerical or arithmetical mistake, but it was inclusion of large area, which could not have been done without conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on the basis of survey reports. The present is a case where PSC happened to issue notification notifying the qualifications for the post as was available under the pre-amended Special Rules. The erratum notification is issued only to make the notification in tune with the qualification as prescribed in the Special Rules as it existed at the time when the notification was issued. Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants were entitled to be considered for the selection in accordance with the qualifications as notified in Annexure A1. The PSC cannot have any right to conduct a selection contrary to the said rules. Similarly, the applicants also do not have a right to be considered for employment except in accordance with the provisions of the Special Rules. There are specific provisions in the Special Rules to the effect that the candidates shall not be graduates. Therefore, the applicants who are graduates cannot have any right to participate in the selection process merely on the ground that they were included in the short list or that the qualification was erroneously notified will not help the applicants in compelling the PSC to go on with the selection process only in accordance with Annexure A1 notification”.

19.    As far as the contention of the petitioners regarding the qualification prescribed in Annexure A5 Special Rules as arbitrary and unconstitutional, the Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the order held as under:

                  “15 . It is settled legal position, as held in Pankajakshi V George Mathew [1987(2) KLT 723], after discussing a series of judgments on the point including Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, [(1985) 1 SCC 641], that a rule made under a statute can be challenged only on the grounds that it is ultra vires of the Act or it is opposed to the fundamental rights or it is opposed to other plenary laws. It was also held that in order to ascertain whether a rule is ultra vires of the Act, the Court can go into the questions: (a) whether it contravenes expressly or impliedly any of the provisions of the statute; (b) whether it achieves the intent and object of the Act; and (c) whether it is unreasonable to be manifestly arbitrary, unjust or partial implying thereby want of authority to make such rules. In Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan Samiti, [(2022) 6 SCC 65], the Apex Court, reiterated that subordinate legislation can be successfully questioned on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is questioned. It can be questioned on the ground that it does not conform to the statute under which it is made or that it is contrary to some other statute. For challenging the subordinate legislation on the ground of arbitrariness, it can only be done when it is found that it is not in conformity with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. It has further been held that it cannot be done merely on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it has not taken into account relevant circumstances which the Court considers relevant. The applicants have not urged any such grounds. The grounds urged are not sufficient to come to conclusion that the qualification prescribed for the post in the Special Rules warrants any interference.

                  16. In Unni K.E v. State of Kerala, [2024 (7) KHC 716], the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala held that the anomalies, if any in the Special Rules are to be looked into by the Government and not by this Tribunal”.

20. In Ext.P11 order dated 02.12.2025 in the review application No.30 of 2025 the Tribunal has further considered the contention of the petitioners regarding Annexures RA2 answer given by the Hon’ble Minister for Health on the floor of the legislative assembly regarding the qualifications of the Field Worker as studied up to VIIIth standard and RA3 letter of the Director of Health Services addressed to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department recommending modification of the qualification and requesting that VIIIth standard can be retained as educational qualification for the Field Workers, and the Tribunal found that it is the Special Rules that has to be considered and not Annexures RA2 and RA3 for issuing the notification prescribing the qualifications.

21. It is true that in Annexure A1 notification the qualification for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department is prescribed as having studied up to VIIIth standard or its equivalent, apart from the remaining qualifications prescribed therein. However, from Annexure A5 Special Rules and from the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in the original application, it is evident that before Annexure A1 notification itself, the qualification for the post of last grade servant in various departments with effect from 01.07.2011, vide Annexure A5 notification, was prescribed as having passed VIIth standard and should not have acquired graduation. It was under that circumstances, Annexure A4 erratum notification was issued by the KPSC. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that a co-equal Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.10.2025 in W.A.No.726 of 2025 – Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission v. Ajmal [2025:KER:75555], in a writ appeal filed by the KPSC challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge contending that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the substantial change in the qualification notified and the qualification which was amended in terms of the amendment to the recruitment rules to the post of Junior Manager (Accounts) in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation held thus:

                  “7. We have heard both sides and have considered the contentions put forth. We note that the Honourable Supreme Court has in Raj Kumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] held that the statement in Y.V.Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that "the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules" does not reflect the correct proposition of law governing services under the Union and the States under Part XIV of the Constitution. After a detailed survey of the cases that have distinguished in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has pithily summed up the conclusions derived as follows:

                  "1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose. Rangaiah's case must be understood in the context of the rules involved therein.

                  2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the rules in force. As on the date consideration takes place, the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates.

                  3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employees do not acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14.

                  4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately."

                  "82.5 When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases."

                  It is in the backdrop of the above dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the averments in the case at hand have to be examined.

                  8. Admittedly, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Common Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, were formulated by consolidating the existing rules and orders of the Corporation, and the same now uniformly govern the service conditions of all its employees. Pursuant to the G.O.(P) No.3/2021/F&CSD dated 11.02.2021, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Manager (Accounts) had been amended, and the prescribed qualifications too stand amended thereby. Subsequently, on 03.01.2022, two fresh vacancies for the said post had been reported, i.e., the reporting of the said vacancies occurred after the amendment to the Recruitment Rules and it pertained to vacancies that arose following the introduction of the Rules of 2021. It is also undisputed that the method of appointment and requisite qualifications are governed by 2021 Rules, under which the qualifications prescribed in the Special Rules for the post stand amended. The practical impact of the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra) discussed above, is that once the qualifications have been revised, vacancies arising after the date of such amendment cannot be filled from the previously published ranked list. Instead, those vacancies must be filled pursuant to a fresh notification and a selection process conducted in accordance with the amended Special Rules.

22. Since the qualification for the post prescribed in Annexure A1 notification for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services Department was not in consonance with Annexure A5 Special Rules, it cannot be said that the subsequent erratum notification by way of Annexure A4 issued by the KPSC to make that qualification in consonance with Annexure A5 Special Rules as arbitrary or illegal. So also, while considering the nature and qualification prescribed for the last grade servants in various departments, in Annexure A5 Special Rules, it can only be said that it is a reasonable classification permitted under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of India, and it is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

23. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold that the impugned Exts.P9 and P11 orders of the Tribunal are perverse or illegal, which warrants interference of this Court by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.