JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. Respondents 1 and 2 in O.A.No.1023 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.P6 order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. For convenience of reference, the parties are referred to in this judgment as they are referred to in the original application. 2. As per the pleadings in the original application, the applicant entered service as a part-time sweeper at the Primary Health Centre, Kanthalloor, with effect from 25.05.1991, and was promoted as Hospital Attender Grade-II in the year 1991 itself. Subsequently, the applicant and similarly appointed persons were served with charge memos and show cause notices in the year 1994 and 1995, respectively, stating that their appointment was unauthorised and against the rules. Thereafter, the applicant and similar appointees were removed from service, and they approached this Court by filing O.P.No.13655 of 1999. By virtue of Annexure A1 judgment dated 09.12.2008 in that original petition, this Court quashed the respective orders that imposed punishment of removal from service on the applicant and other similar persons. The applicant has been working as a Hospital Attendant Grade-II since his entry in service in the year 1991, without any break in service. After Annexure A1 judgment, she approached the 2 nd respondent for granting yearly increments and promotion to the higher post on several occasions. Since those representations were not heeded, the applicant submitted Annexure A2 representation on 08.02.2021 before the 1 st respondent, ventilating her grievance. But that representation was also not considered. Therefore, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing the original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a declaration that she is entitled for increment of pay and all other benefits from the date of appointment as Hospital Attendant Grade-II; a declaration that the applicant is entitled for promotion to time bound higher grade considering her service from 1991 onwards; and direct the respondents to disburse all arrears of pay due to the applicant along with 12% interest. 3. The 2 nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 27.07.2021 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. 3. The 2 nd respondent filed a reply statement dated 27.07.2021 in the original application, opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Annexures R2(a) and R2(b) documents. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that reply statement read thus; “5. It is submitted that the applicant is one among the 18 appointees who got appointment as Part Time Sweeper in Health Services Department by producing bogus certificates in 1991. As these 18 candidates were appointed irregularly by producing fake certificates, a vigilance case is still pending against them. 6. It is submitted that the applicant is initially appointed as Part Time Sweeper at PHC Kanthalloor with effect from 25.05.1991 and was promoted as Hospital Attendant Grade 2 in the same year. Complaints received before the authority that 18 candidates including the applicant were appointed as Part Time Sweeper irregularly and an enquiry has been conducted by the Department as well as the vigilance. On the basis of enquiries, it became clear that those 18 appointments were irregular and 18 candidates got appointment by producing bogus certificates to the authority. 7. It is submitted that Sri.Kunjukani, who is also included in the said 18 irregular appointees had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala claiming the same reliefs and in WP(C) 10347 of 2006, dated 25.07.2006, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala disposed the case, but did not ordered to disburse the service benefits such as increment, promotion, etc. and the fact was informed to Sri. K.M.Kunjukani as per Letter No. A5 - 4112/06/DMO(H) Idukki dated 10.10.2006. Due to the pendency of the vigilance case, the applicant is not eligible to get the service benefits such as increment, promotion etc. True copy of the Order of the Honourable High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.10347 of 2006 dated 25.07.2006 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a). True copy of the Letter No.A5 - 4112/06/DMO(H) Idukki dated 10.10.2006 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(b). 8. It is submitted that the applicant is one among the 18 irregular appointees, who got appointed as Part Time Sweeper and now working as Hospital Attendant Grade 2 at District Hospital Thodupuzha. Considering these facts, none of the appointees have been sanctioned any service benefits such as increment, promotion, etc., during their period of service except pensionary benefits to those who have been retired from service”. 4. Considering these facts, none of the appointees have been sanctioned any service benefits such as increment, promotion, etc., during their period of service except pensionary benefits to those who have been retired from service”. 4. To the reply statement filed by the 2 nd respondent, the applicant filed a rejoinder dated 25.10.2021, producing therewith Annexure A3 document. It is contended in the rejoinder that the Tribunal considered similar cases and directed the 1 st respondent to pass orders by granting all service benefits, including promotion, reckoning the service from the date of initial appointment by Annexure A3 order dated 06.04.2018 in O.A.(EKM)No.2943 of 2017. Apart from that, as per service jurisprudence, once an employee’s service is considered as permanent nature, he/she shall be entitled to all service benefits. 5. The applicant has filed another rejoinder dated 19.11.2022 in the original application, contending that, to the knowledge of the applicant, there is no vigilance case pending against her and Annexure R2(b) has been issued to another person. 6. On behalf of the 1 st respondent, a reply statement dated 11.05.2023 was filed in the original application, producing therewith Annexures R1(a) to R1(c) documents. It is contended in the reply statement that the applicant got appointed as a Part- Time Sweeper in the Health Service Department in 1991. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thodupuzha Unit, had conducted a Preliminary Enquiry into the allegation that 18 appointees, including the applicant, got appointment illegally as Part-Time Sweeper in the Health Service Department by producing fabricated and bogus certificates. Preliminary Enquiry clearly stated that the recruitment of 18 Part-Time Sweepers was done by producing false identity cards and certificates. Director, VACB had recommended findings in the enquiry report and submitted the same to the Government. After examining the same, the Vigilance Department approved the Preliminary Enquiry Report. Subsequently, the Health & Family Welfare Department has directed the Director of Health Services and the District Medical Officer, Idukki, to terminate the 18 candidates, including the applicant, from the service. The 1 st respondent produced a copy of the letter dated 14.12.1992 of the Health and Family Welfare Department as Annexure R1(a) along with the reply statement. 6.1. Subsequently, the Health & Family Welfare Department has directed the Director of Health Services and the District Medical Officer, Idukki, to terminate the 18 candidates, including the applicant, from the service. The 1 st respondent produced a copy of the letter dated 14.12.1992 of the Health and Family Welfare Department as Annexure R1(a) along with the reply statement. 6.1. In the reply statement, the 1 st respondent further stated that the 2 nd respondent, who is the appointing authority of Hospital Attendant Grade-II, had initiated disciplinary action against all of them under Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 . After issuing the Show Cause Notice, the 2 nd respondent had terminated the service of all 18 persons, while they were in their probation period of the Hospital Attendant Grade-II post. Aggrieved by this, the applicant and others had approached this Court, seeking directions for permitting them to continue in the service. In a common judgment dated 09.03.1993 of O.P.Nos.1163, 1365, 1409, 1476, 1477, and 1531 of 1993, this Court, citing the procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings, allowed the Original Petitions, wherein, respondents were given liberty to take appropriate action against the delinquent employees on specific charges. Thus, applicants in the O.Ps, including the applicant herein, could continue in the service. Further, the 2 nd respondent had issued a show cause notice in 1999 for removing all 18 persons, including the applicant herein. The incumbents again approached this Court, which resulted in Annexure A1 judgment. This Court in Annexure A1 judgment has not mentioned anything about the illegality of the recruitment process, but interfered only due to procedural irregularities. 6.2. The 1 st respondent states that, as per the Government's "Employment Generation Scheme - Employment of Promotors of Family Welfare Implementation" - The promotor must satisfy the following criteria. (a) Should be a satisfied acceptor. (b) Should have a living spouse. (c) Should not be above the age of 55. (d) Should not have more than 2 or 3 living children. (e) Should have studied upto VIII std. (f) Promoter and his/her spouse should not be employed. Apart from that, selected promoters will be given training for 2 days. The claim of the applicant was that she had undergone two days training conducted at PHC Muttom in the months of November and December 1979. (e) Should have studied upto VIII std. (f) Promoter and his/her spouse should not be employed. Apart from that, selected promoters will be given training for 2 days. The claim of the applicant was that she had undergone two days training conducted at PHC Muttom in the months of November and December 1979. Preliminary Enquiry report of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau had mentioned that as per the S.S.L.C book of the applicant, her Date of Birth is 06.04.1967. It is unbelievable to note that the applicant attended the training at the age of 12 years while she was studying in STD VII. The Vigilance enquiry report had clearly and undoubtedly observed that the applicant had produced a bogus certificate of training. If her claim was true, to be admitted that she had the training and got a certificate, her photograph in the certificate would have been that of a girl of 12 years. Besides, she had produced her certificate, affixing a photograph of a fully grown-up young lady wearing a saree, who looked around 25 years of age. This itself approved the connivance of the applicant in the incident of producing forged documents for obtaining the job. 6.3. According to the 1 st respondent, even in the Original Application, the applicant did not deny the findings of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau. Due to technical reasons, the disciplinary proceedings have been quashed by this Court as per the judgment dated 09.12.2008 in O.P. Nos 13400, 13603, 13655, 13851 & 14127 of 1999. The selection process of the 18 candidates as Part Time Sweepers from among Family Welfare Promoters is due to foul play. All 17 were retired from service, and this applicant is the last one continuing in the service. None of these retired persons was given increment, promotion or any other service benefits. They are being given pension according to their eligibility in their entry cadre with a minimum scale of pay. 6.4. The 1 st respondent further stated in the reply statement that Annexure A2 representation was received in Government on 16.02.2021. While the said application was being examined by the Government, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the original application. The applicant was found guilty in the Preliminary Enquiry of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and recommended termination from service, while the applicant was in probation period in the post of Hospital Attendant Grade- II. While the said application was being examined by the Government, the applicant approached the Tribunal with the original application. The applicant was found guilty in the Preliminary Enquiry of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and recommended termination from service, while the applicant was in probation period in the post of Hospital Attendant Grade- II. Applicant cannot be allowed to be declared as genuine claimant of a job in public service, who obtained the same through the manipulation of records and forgery. It is a proven and well- established fact that she was a school child at the time of the training in the year 1979, and she produced an identity card, as admitted by her, which she received immediately after two days of training. But the photograph affixed on that identity card is of a grown-up young lady in Saree appeared to be 25 years of age. Thus, her connivance in the offence could be well proven. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P6 order dated 04.01.2024, disposed of the original application. Noting that the departmental proceedings initiated based on the allegations mentioned in the reply statement were found to be unsustainable by Annexure A1 judgment of this Court and the said judgment attained finality, the Tribunal directed the 1 st respondent to consider Annexure A2 representation and the claims of the applicant for service benefits, including pension, reckoning her service from 1991 onwards, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order keeping in mind the observations made in that order. The Tribunal further directed that while considering the claims, the benefits, if any, due to the applicant will not be denied on the ground that the claims were not raised in time. 8. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition. 9. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 10. The learned Senior Government Pleader addressed arguments that were raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal, based on the contentions raised in the reply statements. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent found support for his arguments from the impugned order itself. 11. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent found support for his arguments from the impugned order itself. 11. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 12. 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." 13. 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." 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 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 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. 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 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 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. The correctional jurisdiction under 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 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. In Annexure A1 judgment, this Court found that the entire disciplinary proceedings against the applicant had been conducted in violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 15 of Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules and also the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court quashed the orders of punishment imposed on the applicant and the other petitioners in that original petition. Annexure A1 judgment was not challenged by the State and its officials, and thus it attained finality. 19. It is trite that when an issue is concluded in a judicial proceeding on merits, the same cannot be agitated again in a later proceeding, as it will be hit by the principles of res judicata. Therefore, the respondents cannot once again raise the very same contentions against the applicant that were found against them in Annexure A1 judgment. Admittedly, the applicant has been working as a Hospital Attendant Grade II since 1991 without any break. It is also admitted that she was not sanctioned with any increment during her entire career. She was not given any promotion also. In such circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the respondents are bound to consider the claim of the applicant for increment and other service benefits independently, notwithstanding the allegations referred to in the earlier enquiry proceedings, which were set aside by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. In such circumstances, we find no illegality in the impugned order of the Tribunal holding that the respondents are bound to consider the claim of the applicant for increment and other service benefits independently, notwithstanding the allegations referred to in the earlier enquiry proceedings, which were set aside by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. 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 the impugned Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal as perverse or patently illegal, which warrants interference by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.