S. Muralee Krishna, J.

1. The 2nd applicant in O.A.No.1947 of 2021, the 1st and 3rd applicant in O.A.No.886 of 2021 and the 3rd applicant in O.A.No.2181 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) filed these original petitions, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications.

2. The applicants in the original applications are included in the ranked list dated 28.12.2018 for the post of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) in Alappuzha District, the selection of which was conducted pursuant to the notification dated 15.10.2014 of the Kerala Public Service Commission (‘the KPSC’ for short). As per G.O.(Rt)No.3287/2021/GEdn dated 06.07.2021, the Government has ordered that the staff fixation made in Government and Aided Schools for the year 2019-20 will continue for the academic years 2020-21 and 2021-22 in the background of Covid 19 Pandemic. According to the applicants, despite the existence of a large number of vacancies of UPSA (Malayalam Medium), the same are not being reported to the KPSC. The applicants plead that the amendment made to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as per GO(P)No.1/2021/GEdn dated 05.01.2021, is under challenge in various original applications before the Tribunal, wherein there is an interim order of status quo. Therefore, the vacancies of the Head Masters in various schools, including retirement vacancies, are being left vacant. In such circumstances, the applicants who are included in the ranked list of Alappuzha District are seriously prejudiced due to the non-reporting of the vacancies to the KPSC. The ranked list published by the KPSC expired on 27.12.2021. Before the expiry of the ranked list, the applicants filed the respective original applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking a direction against the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, to report all existing vacancies of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) and also consequential vacancies of Head Master promotion and staff fixation, to the District Officer of the KPSC, Alappuzha, before the expiry of the ranked list. The applicants have also sought for a direction against the District Officer of the KPSC, Alappuzha, to issue advice memos against the vacancies reported, including the applicants from the ranked list and to direct the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, to issue orders of appointment against the advised vacancies, including the applicants from the ranked list.

3. On behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, reply statements and additional reply statements are filed in the original applications raising almost the same contentions. For convenience, we are referring to the reply statement dated 03.09.2021 and the additional reply statement dated 20.06.2024 filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education in O.A.No.886 of 2021. Paragraphs 6 to 11 of the reply statement dated 03.09.2021 filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha read thus:

                  “6. It is humbly submitted that a total No: of 571 posts were sanctioned in the cadre of U.P. School Teachers (Malayalam Medium) during 2019-20 in Alappuzha revenue District. Cadre strength details of UP School Teachers during 2020- 2021 (that staff fixation continuing for this year also)

                 

                  7. It is clear from the above cadre strength details that the no: of teachers working against the direct recruitment method is excess than the actual percentage earmarked as per the existing Government Orders.

                  8. In the cadre strength details given above it is clear that a total No: of 37 vacancies remaining. Out of this 37 remaining vacancies 29 vacancies were reported to Public Service Commission. PSC advised 28 candidates one vacancy kept unfilled by PSC due to the absence of differently abled candidate in the ranked list) from the above said ranked list and appointment orders were send to all these candidates from this office.

                  9. It is submitted that balance 8 vacancies were earmarked for inter district Transfer for the years 2019-2020 and 2020- 2021 out of this 8 vacancies earmarked for IDT 5 vacancies were filled through online Inter District Transfer, balance 3 vacancies is kept unfilled for candidates from IDT under compassionate ground list. The authority for publishing this list was Director General of Education.

                  10. After that 12 vacancies arose from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 which includes anticipated vacancies also due to retirement & promotion etc. Out of this 12 vacancies 8 were already reported to Public Service Commission, in this vacancies 5 candidates were adviced by the PSC and appointment orders were given to this candidates by this appointing authority balance No. of 4 vacancies were earmarked for IDT during the year 2021-2022.

                  11. As per G.O.(P) 3287/2021/G.Edn dated 06.07.2021 staff fixation for the year 2019-2020 is continuing for the year 2021-22 also. It is clear from the above details that all the needful are done by this respondent for ascertaining and reporting vacancies on the basis of the existing orders. This respondent is bound to abide by the norms fixed by Government for filling up of vacancies in Schools and not to be carried away by any other considerations.”

4. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the additional reply statement dated 20.06.2024 filed on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, in O.A.No.886 of 2021, which was adopted in O.A.No.1947 of 2021, read thus:

                  “4. It is submitted that the cadre strength of UPSA, the number of teachers working against each mode of appointment as on 27.12.2021 is shown below.

                 

                  5. It is submitted that this respondent has already taken steps to fill up the vacancies as hereunder.

                  Vacancies reported to PSC – 50 vacancies

                  - 30.10.2020 -01

                  - 13.08.2021 – 01

                  - 04.12.2021 – 12

                  - 16.12.2021 – 10

                  - 20.12.2021 – 07

                  - 27.12.2021 – 19

                  Set apart for IDT – 5 vacancies

                  IDT under Compassionate 2019-20- 02

                  IDT under Compassionate 2020-21- 01

                  IDT under Compassionate 2019-21 – 01 Inter District Transfer    - 01

                  6. Out of 50 vacancies reported to PSC, 3 vacancies were kept apart by the respondent due to the non availability of Differently abled candidates and two vacancies were set apart for by transfer appointment, in the rank list that has already expired and those vacancies were filled by this respondent. This Honourable Tribunal vide order dated 26.04.2023 in MA No.790/2023 filed in OA No.2181/21 has made it clear that the advice which is going to be made by the Public Service Commission against 28 vacancies referred in MA No.790/23 in OA No.2181/21 which arose on HM promotion will be subject to the result of the Original Applications. It is submitted that the claim of the applicants in MA 790/23 in OA No 2181/21 is that 28 vacancies arose on account of HM promotion was before the expiry of the rank list on 27.12.2021. Тo substantiate the claim, the applicants have relied on the reply letter of the Public Information Officer of this respondent's office as Annexure A19 in the OA No.2181/21. Annexure A19 reply was provided by this respondent's office in reply to an application under RTI Act 2005 submitted by Smt.Lekshmi.C.A on 15.07.2022. In the said application the applicant sought information regarding the vacancies reported in the category of UPST in Alappuzha Revenue District after 28.12.2021. The reply given by the Public Information Officer of the office of this respondent vide letter No. A5/587158/22 dated 06.08.2022 provided the details of vacancies that arose under the category of UPST in Alappuzha Revenue District after 28.12.2021 i.e after expiry of the rank list of UPST mentioned in OA No. 2181/21 as Annexure 21. True copy of the application dated 15.07.2022 submitted by Smt. Lekshmi.C.A is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(b). True copy of the reply provided by the Public Information Officer of this respondent's office is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(с).

                  7. The claim of the applicant's in MA 1925/23 in O.A No.886/21 is about the 52 additional division vacancies that arose due to the result of the staff fixation for the year 2022- 23. It is submitted that G.O(P) 3287.21/G.EDN dated 06.07.2021 Government had ordered that the staff fixation for the year 2019-20 will be applicable for 2020-21 and 2021-22 academic year due to the Covid 19 pandemic. After the staff fixation order for the year 2022-23 was published by the Education officer's concerned and 52 additional division vacancies of UPST were proposed. As per Rule 6 of chapter XXIII of KER's the additional division vacancies will be sanctioned by the Government and its effect will be from 1st October of the academic year concerned. Here the Government had sanctioned 51 additional division vacancies of UPST against the 52 proposed additional division vacancies by the Education officers concerned and which will have effect only from 01.10.2022. However the rank list in question expired on 27.12.2021. Those 51 additional vacancies of UPST's cannot be filled up from the said rank list because those vacancies arosed after the expiry of the rank list. The applicants cannot claim any right qua the same.”

5. To the reply statement filed by the 3rd respondent, the applicants filed a rejoinder in the original applications.

6. On 22.12.2021, when the original applications came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, to provisionally report 231 vacancies of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) to the District Officer of the KPSC, Alappuzha, so as to reach him before the closing of the office hours on 27.12.2021. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of that interim order read thus:

                  “2. The applicants in these Original Applications are candidates included in the ranked list for the post of U.P School Assistant(Malayalam Medium) in Education Department in Alappuzha District(Cat.No.386/2014), which is due to expire on 27.12.2021. They contend that a large number of vacancies are yet to be reported to the Public Service Commission and they claim that at least 231 vacancies should be reported to the PSC before 27.12.2021.

                  3. Learned Government Pleader opposes the prayer and stated that there cannot be any provisional reporting of vacancies in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director of Indian System of Medicine & another Vs. Dr.Sumi.T & another[SLP (C) Nos.24214-24221 of 2019]. It is also stated that candidates included in the ranked list have no right to claim the vacancies consequent on promotion and the documents relied on by the applicants cannot be accepted. The statement of the learned Government Pleader is seriously disputed by the applicants who rely on various documents produced in the Original Applications. I find that the matter requires consideration as to the existence of the vacancies and there is nothing in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which prevents the Tribunal from exercising such a power.

                  4. I heard the learned counsel for the applicants, Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission and the learned Government Pleader.

                  5. As the Tribunal is closing for the Christmas holidays today and since the ranked list is due to expire on 27.12.2021, there will be a direction to the Deputy Director of Education. Alappuzha to provisionally report 231 vacancies of UPSA(Malayalaı Medium) to the District Officer of Kerala Public Service Commission, Alappuzha, so as to reach him before the closing of the office hours on 27.12.2021.

                  6. Since the reporting is only provisional, PSC need not effect advice to those vacancies without further orders from this Tribunal. Respondents may file reply statement expeditiously.”

7. On behalf of the District Officer of the KPSC, reply statements and additional reply statements are filed in the original applications. For easy understanding of the contentions of the District Officer of the KPSC, we refer to the reply statement dated 09.01.2023 filed in O.A.No.1947 of 2021. Paragraphs 3 to 9 of that reply statement read thus:

                  “3. It is submitted that notification inviting applications for the post of UPSA (Malayalam) - Direct Recruitment in Education Department in Alapuzha District (Cat. No.386/2014) for anticipatory vacancies was published in the Gazette dated, 10.09.2014 and the last date for receipt of applications was 15.10.2014. An OMR Test and Interview had been conducted, following which a Ranked List was published on 28.12.2018 (No. 983/2018/SSSPL) 180 candidates were included in the main List of the Ranked List, 243 candidates in the Supplementary Lists and 8 candidates in the Differently Abled List. The Ranked List got cancelled on 27.12.2021 after completing its normal validity of 3 years period.

                  4. The applicants Smt. Silpa Chacko A.C. and Smt Lekshmi C A were Included in the Main List of the Ranked List assigning rank numbers 88 and 118 respectively. A total number of 151 advices were issued for the post against the vacancies reported by the appointing authority. The applicant Smt. Silpa Chacko got advised on 07.01.2022. The ranked list was cancelled on 27.12.2021 and no substantive vacancy reported within the validity period is pending for advice.

                  The last advice position is shown below

                 

                  5. As per the Interim Order dated 22.12.2021 in OA No. 2181 of 2021 and connected cases, the Hon'ble Tribunal directed the DDE, Alapuzha to report 231 provisional vacancies for the post so as to reach the office of the Commission before closing of office hours on 27.12.2021 and further directed PSC not to make advice against these vacancies until further orders are pronounced by the Tribunal. In compliance of this Interim Order, 231 vacancies were received at DO, Alapuzha on 27.12.2021 ie, before the cancellation of the Ranked List for the post. In compliance of the interim direction, these provisional vacancies are kept in abeyance until further orders are pronounced in the OA.

                  6. The applicants in the OA claim that there are so many vacancies existing for the post such as vacancy due to promotion as Head Teacher, retirement vacancies, vacancies that may arise as a result of completion of staff fixation etc to be reported to the PSC for advising from the impugned list.

                  7. The main averment in the OA is with regard to the non- reporting of vacancies in the post available in the Department to PSC. It may be noted that none of the averments raised in this OA can be redressed by the Commission. Assessment of vacancies and reporting of the same do not come under the purview of the Commission, but under the appointing authority. The Commission have conducted selection process for the impugned selection as per relevant rules and issued advice against all the substantive vacancies reported.

                  8. The Commission have not done anything illegal in this case. The Commission is performing its constitutional function of conducting selection to various posts in accordance with the existing rules of rotation and reservation. The applicant Smt. Silpa Chacko got advised for the post. But the applicant Smt. Lekshmi C A was not advised since her turn did not arise while making advice against the vacancies reported for the post following the Rules of reservation and rotation.

                  9. The Commission have issued advice to all substantive vacancies reported by the appointing authority, within the validity period, following the rules of reservation and rotation. 231 vacancies reported provisionally as per the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal are pending with the Commission for advice. It may be noted that advice could be issued against this vacancies on obtaining orders of the Tribunal and on reporting of these vacancies as substantive with the date of occurrence falling within the validity period of the ranked list. The appointing authority is solely responsible for reporting vacancies to PSC. The ranked list expired on 27.12.2021 and no substantive vacancies reported within the validity period are pending for advice. As far as this respondent is concerned, the OA is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed as such”.

8. The Tribunal considered all three original applications along with similar such original applications filed in respect of some other districts, and by Ext.P1 impugned order dated 03.04.2025, dismissed all the original applications, being found as devoid of merit.

9. The aggrieved petitioners-applicants are now before this Court with these original petitions.

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

11. The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants would submit that from the additional reply statement dated 20.06.2024 filed by the Deputy Director of Education, Alappuzha, it is evident that there is a shortage of 95 UPSAs to be appointed by direct selection. The said vacancies existed before the expiry of the ranked list on 27.12.2021. Similarly, from the list of Schools having no Head Teacher produced as Annexure A4 in O.A.No.1947 of 2021, it can be seen that there were no Head Teachers in 107 schools. If Head Master posts were filled in a time-bound manner, there would be more vacancies of UPSA in the district that could have been reported to the KPSC. Therefore, according to the applicants, a total number of 231 vacancies of UPSA (Malayalam Medium) are to be reported and ought to have been filled before the expiry of the ranked list. Despite the interim order of the Tribunal to provisionally report those vacancies, the authorities concerned did not take action, and it is without considering these aspects that the original applications were dismissed by the Tribunal.

12. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the vacancies claimed by the applicants are 52 additional division vacancies that arose due to the result of staff fixation for the year 2022-23. The effect of the additional division vacancies will be from 1st October for the academic year concerned, as per Rule 6 of Chapter XXIII of KER. Hence, the sanctioned 51 additional division vacancies of UPST against the 52 proposed additional division vacancies will have effect only from 01.10.2022.

13. The learned Standing Counsel for the KPSC would submit that the applicants approached the Tribunal with data collected under the Right to Information Act. Whether such data collected under the Right to Information Act can be accepted for finding that there are unreported vacancies was considered by this Court in Muhammed Siyad P.A v. Sreejith Appu [2016 (3) KHC 233] and held that such information cannot be relied on. A similar question was considered by this Court in the judgment dated 09.03.2020 in O.P(KAT)No.98 of 2017 and found against the applicants therein.

14. The learned Senior Government Pleader also pointed out that the judgment dated 04.12.2024 in O.P.(KAT)No.496 of 2023 wherein a similar question was considered by this Court based on the judgment in Kerala Aided L.P. and U.P. School, Kollam v. State of Kerala [2016 KHC 118] and held that if the policy decision of the Government is well founded not to fill up the vacancies, the Tribunal or the Court cannot compel the Government to fill up the those vacancies from the ranked list.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. We have carefully perused the materials placed on record and appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar.

22. The applicants are relying on the information received under the Right to Information Act to contend that there are unreported vacancies of UPSA and also unfilled vacancies of Head Teacher in Alappuzha district. This contention of the applicants is refuted in the reply statement filed by the respondents. As found by the Tribunal, there is no evidence to show that the vacancies were available due to the sanctioning of additional divisions when the ranked list was in operation. As per the reply statement filed by the Deputy Director of Education, the additional division vacancies were sanctioned after the expiry of the ranked list, subsequent to the staff fixation for the year 2022-23. In Sreejith Appu [2016 (3) KHC 233], a Division Bench of this Court held that the information under the RTI Act produced at best can only be treated as the vacancy position as understood by the respective officers and will not bind the appointing authority in any manner especially on account of the fact that the said officers do not maintain any document in material form to provide information regarding the vacancy position with reference to the respective cadre strength of Assistant Engineers (Electrical).

23. In the judgment dated 09.03.2020 in OP(KAT)No.98 of 2017, after anaysing the factual matrix in that case, this Court held that the position on the basis of the information received by the applicants under the Right to Information Act cannot be relied to hold that the vacancies were existed during the currency of the ranked list in that case. In the judgment dated 04.12.2024 in OP(KAT)No.496 of 2023, while considering the matter related to reporting of vacancies of LPSA and UPSA to the KPSC in Alappuzha district, this Court held thus:

                  “14. The Tribunal or this Court cannot compel an appointing authority to fill up vacancies from a ranked list. [See the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Kerala Public Service Commission and Another v. Sheejamol M.C. and Others [2020 (5) KHC 555] and the Division Bench in Jaseena C.K. v. State of Kerala (2023 KHC 504)].

                  If the policy decision of the Government is well-founded not to fill up such vacancies, the Tribunal or this Court cannot compel the Government to fill those vacancies from a ranked list. The candidates included in the ranked list have no right to insist the appointing authority to fill those vacancies by regular hands. In the light of the policies of the Government, we are of the view that the Tribunal erred in finding that those substantive vacancies which are available, have to be filled by the candidates included in the ranked list. This would amount to overreaching the Government policies. In the absence of any finding that these vacancies were withheld arbitrarily by the Deputy Director of Education, from reporting to the PSC, the Tribunal could not have ordered reporting of those vacancies. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order.”

24. From the impugned order of the Tribunal, we notice that the Tribunal has considered all the factual and legal aspects while dismissing the original applications. On reappreciation of the materials on record, we find no illegality and impropriety in the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, these original petitions are liable to be dismissed.

                  In the result, these original petitions stand dismissed.