Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The applicants 1, 2 and 4 in O.A.No.782 of 2021 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 04.12.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment in their status as they were before the Tribunal, unless otherwise stated.

2. Going by the pleadings in the original application, the applicants are presently working as Demonstrator/instructor Grade-II in Computer Engineering/Computer Hardware Engineering under the Technical Education Department, and they satisfactorily completed their period of probation. As per the amended Special Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Lecturer in Engineering/Technology in Class-C Polytechnics is (1) by direct recruitment, (2) appointment by transfer from the category of Instructor Grade-l in Engineering Colleges/ Workshop Superintendent in Polytechnic Colleges/ Superintendents in Technical High Schools (according to seniority), (3) in the absence of qualified candidates under item (2) above, by transfer from the category of Instructor in Engineering/ Draftsman Grade-I Foreman belonging to the branch of Engineering/ Technology in which the vacancy exist, (4) in the absence of item(2) and (3) above, by transfer from the category of Demonstrators/Draftsman Grade-ll/ Workshop instructor/ Instructor Grade-Il. The applicants state that they fall under item (4) by transfer category under Category 2- Lecturer in Engineering/ Technology under Class-C Polytechnics, and they are eligible for by transfer appointment in the absence of candidates for by transfer appointment in items (2) and (3) category. 17 vacancies falling under the by-transfer category are lying vacant from 22.01.2019 for want of qualified candidates in items (2) and (3). Since the probation of the applicants was not declared as on 22.01.2019, the 2nd respondent did not consider the applicants for by transfer appointment against the above- mentioned 17 vacancies existing on and from 22.01.2019. The applicants state that their probation was declared with effect from 01.06.2019, 10.07.2019, 31.10.2020 and 20.02.2021, respectively. Therefore, there is no legal hurdle in considering the applicants 1, 2 and 4 for by transfer appointment to the post of Lecturer in Engineering/Technology. It is the contention of the applicants that the method of recruitment continued to be governed by the Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules as amended by Annexure A15 Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Special Rules, 2010. Further, in view of the clarification issued by the All India Council for Technical Education the faculty members who have already qualified or are likely to qualify shortly under the existing Regulations can be given a choice to them for being considered for promotion under the existing Regulations within three years from the date of coming into force of Annexure A25 Regulations, 2019, on 01.03.2019. Moreover, without conceding that even if Annexure A25 Regulations, 2019 are applicable with effect from 01.03.2019, the 17 vacancies falling under the by transfer appointment quota existed as on 22.01.2019 are to be filled up in accordance with the Special Rules as amended by Annexure A15 read with Annexure A28 AICTE Regulations, 2010. Hence, the applicants filed the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

                  “(i) to call for the records leading to Annexure A35 and A36 and to set aside the same to the extent they did not include the applicants 1 to 4 in Annexure A26;

                  (ii) to issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicants 1 to 4 for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering under Class C-Polytechnics in terms of the Kerala Technical Education Service Special Rules, 1967 as amended from time to time as against the 17 vacancies existing with effect from 22.01.2019 and to promote them to the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering with effect from the date of their entitlement with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances immediately and at any rate, within a time-frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal”.

                  2.1. In the original application, on behalf of the 1st respondent, a reply statement dated 20.11.2024 was filed opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R1(a) and R1(b) documents. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, a reply statement dated 20.09.2021 was filed, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexure R2(a) document. Similarly, on behalf of the 3rd respondent, a reply statement dated 19.10.2024 was filed contending that the original application is devoid of merits. The applicants filed rejoinder statements dated 08.02.2025 and 09.03.2023 to the reply statements.

                  2.2.    After hearing both sides and on appreciation of materials on record, the Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 20, 21 and the last paragraph of that order read thus:

                  “20. The learned Government Pleader, Adv. M. Rahul on the other hand defended the non-inclusion of the applicants in the list of by transfer appointment. He argued that the law has been settled by a series of judgments; the judgment Annexure A29 cannot be interpreted so as to appoint those persons who gets qualified much after 01.03.2019. The date of occurrence of vacancy is the relevant factor to be considered and only those persons who were eligible by all means alone could be considered for by transfer appointment against vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the applicants had not satisfactorily completed probation as on 01.03.2019. After 01.03.2019, the Special Rules are not in operation so far as method of recruitment is concerned. The method of recruitment was changed as one of direct recruitment by the AICTE Regulations, 2019 which governs the field now. After the framing of 2019 Diploma Regulations, the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering could be filled up only through direct recruitment. The reliance placed on Note to Rule 28 (iA) of Part II KS&SSR is totally misplaced as there is no Special Rules which provides for by transfer appointment after 01.03.2019. After 01.03.2019, it is not legally possible to fill up the post with the person who becomes qualified much after 01.03.2019. All the applicants completed their probation much after 01.03.2019 and they cannot claim promotion against a vacancy to which the only mode of recruitment is direct recruitment after 01.03.2019.

                  21. The claim of the applicants to the post of Lecturer in Computer Engineering is based on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure A29 to fill up the vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019 by applying the Special Rules. All vacancies which arose after 01.03.2019 are governed by AICTE Diploma Regulations, 2019 according to which direct recruitment is the only method of recruitment. The applicants claim could be entertained only against vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019. Once it is shown that life of the vacancy is extended beyond 01.03.2019, that vacancy can be filled up only by direct recruitment. Applicants cannot claim any right for getting any by transfer appointment against a vacancy which arose prior to 01.03.2019 as they were not qualified in all means. None of them had satisfactorily completed probation as on 01.03.2019 and their claim to the vacancy is based on Rule 28 (iA) of Part II KS&SSR. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, they are not governed by the Special Rules and the method of recruitment provided thereunder after 01.03.2019. All their claims are limited to those vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019 and appointments which were made against those vacancies. In that view of the matter, the applicants were not qualified for consideration under the by transfer quota to any vacancy that arose prior to 01.03.2019. After 01.03.2019 if at all a vacancy remains unfilled that is governed only by AICTE Diploma Regulations, 2019 which provides for direct recruitment as the sole method of recruitment.

                  In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Original Application and accordingly the Original Application is dismissed”.

3. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the original application, the applicants 1, 2 and 4 are now before this Court with this original petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- applicants 1, 2, and 4, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent All India Council for Technical Education (‘AICTE’ for short) and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Considering the nature of the reliefs sought in the original petition, issuance of notice to the 4th respondent is dispensed.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants would submit that, as per Annexure A29 judgment dated 22.12.2020 in O.P.(KAT)No.542 of 2019 and connected matters, this Court held that the vacancies in the post of Lecturers in Polytechnics that arose before 01.03.2019 can be filled up without reference to the AICTE (Diploma) Regulations 2019. The vacancies to which the applicants aspire arose before 01.03.2019, and therefore, those vacancies ought to have been filled by promotion without reference to the AICTE (Diploma) Regulations 2019. Moreover, as per the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987, any Regulation framed by the AICTE ought to have been placed before both Houses of Parliament before the stipulated time. The same has not been done, and therefore, the Regulations are ab initio void. For these reasons, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that from the pleadings in the original petition, it is clear that the applicants had not satisfactorily completed probation as on 01.03.2019. Since the Special Rules are not in operation after 01.03.2019, the applicants cannot claim any right for by transfer appointment against the vacancy which arose prior to 01.03.2019. There is no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal.

7. 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.

8. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd [(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;

                  "The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to."

                  (underline supplied)

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. The applicants who have been working as Demonstrators in Computer Engineering under the Technical Education Department are claiming by transfer appointment to the post of Lecturer, placing reliance on the directions in Annexure A29 judgment of this Court in O.P.(KAT)No.542 of 2019 and connected matters. By Annexure A29 judgment a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the original petitions directing the competent authority to ensure that the vacancies in the post of Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics under the Technical Education Department are to be filled up in accordance with the stipulations in the Kerala Technical Education Service Rules, 1967, after its amendment through the Kerala Technical Education Service (Amendment) Special Rules 2010 and any other Regulation of the AICTE which was applicable at the relevant time in respect of all vacancies which arose prior to 01.03.2019 and further to ensure that all vacancies which arose in that post (Lecturers in Technical streams in Polytechnics) after 01.03.2019 be filled up strictly in accordance with the stipulations in the AICTE Regulations on pay scales, service conditions, and minimum qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Technical Institutions and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Technical Education (Diploma) Regulation, 2019.

15. From the pleadings, as pointed out by the learned Senior Government Pleader, it is evident that the applicants had not satisfactorily completed probation as on 01.03.2019. Therefore, applicants cannot claim any right for getting by transfer appointment against the vacancy that arose prior to 01.03.2019, since they were not qualified till that date. As found by the Tribunal, when the life of the vacancy is extended beyond 01.03.2019, those vacancies can be filled only by direct recruitment.

16. In Annexure A29 judgment relied by the applicants themselves, this Court held that the appointments to the vacancies arising after 01.03.2019 be filled up strictly in accordance with the AICTE (Diploma) Regulation, 2019. When the applicants rely on one part of the direction in that judgment, they cannot disown the other. They cannot approbate and reprobate Annexure A29 judgment.

17. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we find no ground to hold that the impugned Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal is perverse or illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

                  In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.