JUDGMENT : MURALEE KRISHNA S., J. 1. The respondents in O.A.No.421 of 2024 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.P3 order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. Going by the averments in the original application, the respondent is presently working as an office attendant at Primary Health Centre, Bharathannur in Thiruvananthapuram District. He entered service as a Peon on 14.02.2005, and his probation in the cadre of Peon was declared by Annexure A1 order dated 06.02.2007, with effect from 14.02.2006. Now he wants to study an engineering course to get a higher job in future. Hence, he submitted a representation dated 19.10.2023 before the Director of Health Services with a request to grant a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’ for short) to join Higher studies. Though he had submitted his representation for NOC for joining higher studies on 19.10.2023, the same was not considered in time. The District Medical Officer, Thiruvananthapuram, informed the Medical Officer in Charge of Family Health Centre, Peringammala, through Letter No. A2-591/2024/DMO dated 14.02.2024 that the respondent had availed loans from Co-operative Societies, and the same is in arrears, and hence NOC for joining higher studies can be granted only after clearing the loan amount. There are no Government liabilities pending against the respondent. His application has been rejected contrary to the provisions in Appendix XII of Part I KSR. Denial of NOC for joining higher studies is illegal, unjust and discriminatory. Hence, the respondent submitted Annexure A3 representation dated 01.03.2024 and Annexure A4 representation dated 01.03.2024 before the 1 st and 2 nd petitioners, respectively. The same is pending consideration. With these pleadings, the respondent - applicant approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to grant NOC to him for joining the B.E Course in AR Engineering College, Alamkulam, Thirunelveli District and to grant LWA for completing his engineering studies in accordance with the provisions in Appendix XII B of Part I KSR. 3. On behalf of the 3 rd petitioner, a reply statement dated 08.04.2024 was filed, opposing the averments in the original application, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) document. 3. On behalf of the 3 rd petitioner, a reply statement dated 08.04.2024 was filed, opposing the averments in the original application, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) document. Paragraphs 4 to 6 of that reply statement read thus: “4. It is submitted that the applicant has fulfilled the criterion for LWA for study purpose vide appendix XIIB KSR such as completing the period of probation, officiating in a regular post. But the Medical Officer in charge, Family Health Centre, Peringamala where the applicant has been officiating prior to his transfer to Primary Health Centre, Bharathannoor has informed that the applicant has the following liabilities pending in various financial institutions and service co-operative societies. True copy of statement showing the details of liabilities of the applicant pending in various financial institutions and service co-operative societies issued by the Medical Officer in charge, Family Health Centre, Peringamala is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(a). There is a total amount of Rs.57,500/- per month pending against the applicant by way of co-operative recovery. 5. The finance department vide Circular No. 10/98/Fin, dated 09.02.1998 has observed that a large number of employees like the applicant have availed loans from various financial institutions and cooperative societies beyond the capacity of repayment. Kerala Financial Code article 62 instructs the total amount of recovery from an employee won't be in excess 1/3 of their salary. The circular instructs furthermore that those employees whose co-operative recovery is in excess of 1/3 of their salary, must be removed from service. This respondent allowed the applicant to continue in service taking a humanitarian view as the applicant is a low paid employee on presumption that the dues will be cleared in course of time as the applicant is in service. If the applicant is given NOC for joining the course mentioned in the OA, there won't be any salary for the applicant for the next three years. Then the amount mentioned in the above table with interest and penal interest would become a huge amount which the applicant will find extremely difficult to deal with. Hence the NOC was denied. 6. From the above facts it is evident that this respondent has no willful intention to deny NOC and disrupt the higher studies of the applicant. This respondent was under the impression that since the applicant is continuing in service, he will get an opportunity to clear the dues. Hence the NOC was denied. 6. From the above facts it is evident that this respondent has no willful intention to deny NOC and disrupt the higher studies of the applicant. This respondent was under the impression that since the applicant is continuing in service, he will get an opportunity to clear the dues. Further more if the applicant execute a bond with the Co-operative societies to the effect that he will rejoin service after the expiry of Leave Without Allowances and clear the co-operative recoveries mentioned in Annexure R3(a). In the above mentioned circumstances, this respondent has no objection in forwarding the application of NOC to the Directorate of Health Services for study purpose subject to the clearance of liability in Co-operative societies.” 4. On 06.06.2024, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, the Tribunal allowed the original application. Paragraphs 4 and 5 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “4. It is evident that the respondents have no case that there exists any liability from the applicant to the Department or to the State Government. Merely because the applicant had availed loans or stood as surety to the Kerala State Financial Enterprises or to any other Cooperative Societies even on the basis of Salary Certificates issued from the Department, the same cannot be taken as a ground to deny the grant of NOC for higher studies or to deny LWA for the purpose of higher studies. None of the provisions contained in Rules 88 or 91 of Part I, KSR read with Appendix XII B thereof, will in any manner enable the respondents to deny NOC or LWA on the ground that the employee has got liability with any financial institutions or Co-operative Societies. Further, this Tribunal takes note of the fact that, the competent authority to grant NOC and LWA is the 2 nd respondent. The 3 rd respondent was not at all justified in not forwarding the request submitted by the applicant to the competent authority for taking decision with respect to the request made. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Original Application is entitled to succeed. Annexure- A2 is hereby set aside. The 3 rd respondent was not at all justified in not forwarding the request submitted by the applicant to the competent authority for taking decision with respect to the request made. 5. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the Original Application is entitled to succeed. Annexure- A2 is hereby set aside. It is hereby declared that the request of the applicant for grant of NOC for higher studies as well as request for grant of LWA under Appendix XII B of Part I, KSR cannot be denied by the respondents for the reason of existing liability of the applicant with the financial institutions or Co-operative Societies. Since the applicant has to seek admission to the course afresh in the next batch, he will be entitled to seek fresh NOC and leave application. If any request is received from the applicant seeking for grant of NOC or to avail LWA under Appendix XII B of Part I, KSR, the respondents shall process the same and shall take appropriate decision thereof, without any further delay, taking note of the findings and observations contained hereinabove. The Original Application is allowed accordingly”. 5. Being aggrieved, the State and its officials filed the original petition. 6. On 04.03.2025, when this original petition came up for consideration, the Division Bench of this Court directed the learned Government pleader to get instructions as to the liability of the respondent as of that day. In pursuance of that direction, the 3 rd petitioner filed an affidavit dated 21.06.2025 in this original petition. Paragraphs 3 to 9 of that affidavit read thus: “3. It is respectfully submitted that the above O.P(KAT) has been filed by the State challenging the order of the Hon’ble Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The applicant Sri.Suneer S.F filed the original application for issuing a direction to the respondents to grant NOC to the application for joining the BE course in A R Engineering College, Thirunelveli District and also to grant LWA for completing the Engineering studies. The department was not prepared to issue NOC to the applicant, who is working as Office Attendant at Primary Health Centre, Bharathannoor, in Thiruvananthapuram District. Applicant joined on 14.02.2005 and his probation was declared with effect from 14.02.2006. During the tenure of his service, he availed so many loans citing the salary certificate as a guaranteed surety to repay the loan amount. Applicant joined on 14.02.2005 and his probation was declared with effect from 14.02.2006. During the tenure of his service, he availed so many loans citing the salary certificate as a guaranteed surety to repay the loan amount. Under various heads, a huge amount is stands as liability on the part of the applicant. The details of the liability stands against the applicant is furnished in a tabular form below:- 4. It is respectfully submitted that the Nedumangad Taluk Govt. Servants Co-operative Society Ltd.No.T.225 as per letter dated 05.06.2025 intimated that a sum of Rs.5,01,372/- is stands as liability as on 04.03.2025. Out of that amount, Rs.2,90,128/- stands as principal amount and Rs.2,11,244/- is stands as interest. A true copy of the letter dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Secretary, Nedumangad Taluk Govt. Servants Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T.225 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3(a). 5. It is further submitted that the Health Services Staff Co- operative Society Ltd. No.T.431 intimated as per letter dated 06.06.2025 that a sum of Rs.6,43,486/- is outstanding as liability. A true copy of the letter dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Secretary, Health Services Staff Co-operative Society Ltd. No.T.431 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3(b). 6. Likewise, the Farmers Service Co-operative Bank No.919, Nedumangad as per letter dated 07.06.2025 intimated that a sum of Rs.1,73,119/- is outstanding as liability. Out of that amount Rs.1,50,000/- is the principal amount and Rs.23,019/- is the interest. A true copy of the letter dated 07.06.2025 from the Farmers Service Co-operative Bank No.919, Nedumangad, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3(c). 7. It is submitted that the KSFE, Kallissery Branch as per letter dated 06.06.2025 intimated to this deponent that Rs.1,89,524/ is stands liability on the part of the applicant towards KSFE, Kallissery Branch. A true copy of the letter dated 06.06.2025 issued by the Branch Manager, KSFE, Kallissery Branch is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3(d). 8. It is respectfully submitted that even though the applicant is working as an Office Attendant, his monthly salary is not sufficient to repay a huge amount as narrated above. The total liability comes to Rs.15,07,501/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seven thousand five hundred and one only). 9. It is respectfully submitted that, in the above peculiar facts and circumstances, the Department was abstained from issuing NOC. The total liability comes to Rs.15,07,501/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs seven thousand five hundred and one only). 9. It is respectfully submitted that, in the above peculiar facts and circumstances, the Department was abstained from issuing NOC. This affidavit is filed by furnishing the details of the liability amount of the applicant to show that the Department have sufficient reasons prevented from issuing NOC.” 7. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that during the tenure of his service, the respondent availed several loans, offering the salary certificate as a guaranteed security to repay the loan amount. Some other employees stood as guarantors for the loans. More than Rs.15/- Lakhs is the liability of the respondent on those loans, towards different Co- operative Societies and the KSFE. The details of those loans are provided in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 21.06.2025 filed by the 3 rd petitioner. If the respondent is granted LWA, it will not be possible for him to clear the loans using his salary, and in that event, the liability will be on the guarantors. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that those guarantors were not made parties to the original application by the respondent. It is the arguments of the learned Senior Government Pleader that in Ext.P4 order dated 27.06.2023 issued by the Government, it is clarified that NOC will not be issued for sanctioning LWA under Appendix XII-A, XII-B and XII-C to those employees facing cooperative recoveries. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that the NOC for LWA cannot be claimed as a right by an employee, and therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Ext.P4 clarification is not applicable to the respondent since there is no recovery ordered from his salary. According to the learned counsel, none of the provisions contained in Rule 88 or 91 of Part I KSR read with Appendix XII B thereof will entitle the petitioners to deny NOC for LWA on the ground that the respondent has liability with the financial institutions. 10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. 10. 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. 11. 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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 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. 17. The respondent has not denied the fact that he availed loans from various financial institutions, and his liability is more than Rs.15/- Lakhs as stated in paragraph 3 of the affidavit dated 21.06.2025 filed by the 3 rd petitioner. It is also discernible from the materials placed on record that the guarantors of the loan are not made parties to the original application filed by the respondent. 18. Neither in the original application nor during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent could point out any provision in the Service Rules that mandates the employer to compulsorily give NOC for availing LWA by an employee for study purposes. It is a decision that has to be taken by the employer, taking into consideration the purpose of LWA and also considering the best interests of the institution concerned. It is a decision that has to be taken by the employer, taking into consideration the purpose of LWA and also considering the best interests of the institution concerned. In the instant case, it is the specific stand of the petitioners that if the respondent is given NOC for joining the course mentioned in the original application, the respondent will not get salary for the next three years, and thereby it will lead to accumulation of interest and penal interest on the loan amount. It is pertinent to note that in the reply statement filed by the petitioners in the original application, it is not stated that the respondent will not be issued with NOC; but the contention is that such NOC can be issued subject to the clearance of liability in the co-operative societies. 19. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the Tribunal failed to consider the merit of the aforesaid contentions raised by the petitioners in their proper perspective. The impugned order is therefore liable to be set aside. In the result, the original petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 06.06.2024 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.421 of 2024 and the original application is dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the respondent-applicant to submit fresh application for NOC for availing LWA for study purpose, after clearing the financial liability incurred by him by offering the salary certificate as security and offering co-employees as guarantors, if he is willing to do so.