JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The 4 th respondent in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, is before this Court in this original petition filed invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024 of the Tribunal in that original application, which was one filed by the 1 st respondent herein-applicant, invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , to set aside Annexure A11 erratum notification dated 09.11.2021 issued by the 1 st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (2 nd respondent herein) and Annexure A12 consequential advice dated 23.11.2021 issued to the 4 th respondent (petitioner herein) and Annexure A14 order of appointment dated 13.12.2021 issued by the 3 rd respondent State Police Chief (4 th respondent herein); an order directing the 1 st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (2 nd respondent herein) to advice the applicant (1 st respondent herein) as per Annexure A10 ranked list; and to direct the 3 rd respondent State Police Chief (4 th respondent herein) to effect appointment in accordance with the advice to be made by the Kerala Public Service Commission, on the basis of Annexure A10 ranked list. 2. The pleadings and materials on record would show that the applicant and the 4 th respondent in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021 submitted applications pursuant to Annexure A1 notification dated 10.04.2019 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Scientific Assistant (Biology) in the Kerala Police Service (Forensic Science Laboratory), against an NCA vacancy for Scheduled Caste community. The essential qualifications and the preferential qualification prescribed for the said post in Annexure A1 notification, which is in tune with Annexure A13 Special Rules for various technical posts in the Kerala State Forensic Science Laboratory, 2014, read thus; “a) Essential Qualifications:- Post Graduate Degree in Botany/Zoology with not less than 50% marks from a recognized University. b) Preferential Qualification:- (1) M.Phil Degree in Botany/Zoology from a recognized University. (2) Two years Research/Analytical experience in Botany/Zoology from a recognized institution.” 3. b) Preferential Qualification:- (1) M.Phil Degree in Botany/Zoology from a recognized University. (2) Two years Research/Analytical experience in Botany/Zoology from a recognized institution.” 3. After conducting an online examination, the Kerala Public Service Commission published Annexure A10 ranked list of the candidates for selection to the post of Scientific Assistant (Biology), in the Kerala Police Service (Forensic Science Laboratory), against NCA vacancy for Scheduled Caste community, in which the 1 st respondent-applicant was rank No.1 and the 4 th respondent-petitioner herein was rank No.2. Both of them secured 40.67 marks. The said ranked list was brought into force with effect from 24.09.2021. Two months thereafter, the Public Service Commission issued Annexure A11 erratum notification dated 09.11.2021, in which the 4 th respondent (petitioner herein) is rank No.1 and the applicant (1 st respondent herein) is rank No.2. The said notification reads thus; “It is hereby notified that the following modifications has been made in the Ranked List No.338/2021/OLE dated 24.09.2021 for selection to the post of Scientific Assistant Biology-1 NCA-SC-Statewide (Cat.No.033/2019)-Kerala Police Service (Forensic Science Laboratory). The entry “MPhil” in Remarks column, noted against the name of Greeshma Pradeep (Rank No.1) (Reg.No.100107) included in the above Ranked List is deleted from the Ranked List as she possesses only one preferential qualification. The Rank position of Greeshma Pradeep with Rank No.1 is deleted and re-assigned as Rank 2 and the rank position of Aswathi S with Rank No.2 is deleted and re-assigned as Rank 1 in the Ranked List. Accordingly, the revised entries in the Ranked List will read as follows; It is challenging Annexure A11 erratum notification and for other consequential reliefs that the 1 st respondent-applicant had approached the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, with the aforesaid reliefs. 4. In O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, Ext.P2 reply statement dated 21.01.2022 has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent Kerala Public Service Commission. The 4 th respondent in the O.A. has filed Ext.P4 reply statement dated 06.01.2023. The applicant filed Ext.P5 rejoinder dated 30.05.2024 to the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent and Ext.P6 rejoinder dated 30.05.2024 to the reply statement filed by the 4 th respondent. 5. The 4 th respondent in the O.A. has filed Ext.P4 reply statement dated 06.01.2023. The applicant filed Ext.P5 rejoinder dated 30.05.2024 to the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent and Ext.P6 rejoinder dated 30.05.2024 to the reply statement filed by the 4 th respondent. 5. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal, by Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024, allowed O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, whereby Annexure A11 erratum notification dated 09.11.2021 is set aside and the Kerala Public Service Commission is directed to act upon Annexure A10 ranked list and advice the applicant, in the place of the 4 th respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. In the said order, it was made clear that, it would be open to the 4 th respondent to approach the 2 nd respondent as she has been continuing though on a provisional basis, because of the interim order of the Tribunal, from December 2021 onwards. Paragraphs 12 to 15 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal read thus; “12. Going by Rule 12A when more than one candidate secure equal marks, the one having preferential qualification shall be ranked above the candidate securing the same number of marks but not having the preferential qualification. In the present case, the applicant is having M.Phil, which is one of the preferential qualifications whereas the 4 th respondent does not have any such qualifications. Neither the Special Rules nor the notification provide that preference can be given only if a candidate is having both the preferential qualifications. The applicant who is having M.Phil, cannot be said to be less meritorious compared to the 4 th respondent, who does not have any of the preferential qualifications. Therefore there was no circumstance to determine the rank position on the basis of age, reckoning only the marks secured by the applicant and the 4 th respondent. Therefore the action of the PSC in lowering the rank of the applicant to her detriment and placing the 4 th respondent who was the 2 nd rank holder above the applicant after deleting the entry "M.Phil' against the name of the applicant in the rank list and issuance of the addendum ranked list, cannot be said to be proper or legal. 13. 13. The contention that the PSC can correct a mistake at any time and that applicant does not have any right on mere inclusion in a rank list, relying on the judgment in Kerala Public Service Commission v. Dr. Kesavankutty Nair [ 1977 KLT 818 ] or in O.A.(Ekm) 207 of 2015 cannot be accepted. In Dr. Kesavankutty Nair , the petitioner challenged the cancellation of the ranked list on expiry of the validity period and sought advice from such a ranked list. There it was held that mere inclusion of a candidate in a ranked list, does not confer any right on him/her, to be advised or appointed, in the light of Rule 3(b) of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules. That judgment does not apply to the factual circumstances of this case. The order in O.A.No.207 of 2015 also does not apply to the factual circumstances arising in the present case. The issue considered in that case was relating to the decision of the PSC to compensate the pending reservation turns from the list of LPSA after it started separate selection process for LPS and UPSA in the year 2006 consequent to the amendment of the qualification for both those posts. Till that time common selection was conducted for both the posts and advice was being made from the common ranked list. The claim raised for compensation from UPSA ranked list was rejected observing that the communities were losing their benefits. That order also is not applicable to the present case. 14. Moreover, the rank of the applicant is lowered to her detriment from Rank No.1 of Annexure A10, without even issuing a notice or opportunity of hearing to her. The action of the PSC is therefore vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. Though the learned counsel for the PSC contended that even if a notice was given, there would not have been a different decision, the said contention is unsustainable. That cannot be accepted as a justifiable reason for not issuing any notice before the revision of the ranked list to the prejudice of any candidate. The power conferred on the PSC cannot be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily, in this manner. 15. In the circumstances, we find that the erratum notification revising the rank of the applicant and the 4 th respondent was illegal as well as unfair. The power conferred on the PSC cannot be permitted to be exercised arbitrarily, in this manner. 15. In the circumstances, we find that the erratum notification revising the rank of the applicant and the 4 th respondent was illegal as well as unfair. When the matter came up for consideration on 14.12.2021 this Tribunal had ordered that further proceedings pursuant to Annexures A11 and A12 would be subject to further orders in the Original Application. In the result, Annexure A11 is set aside. There shall be a direction to the PSC to act upon Annexure A10 ranked list and to advise the applicant in the place of the 4 th respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that it will be open to the 4 th respondent to approach the 2 nd respondent as she has been continuing though on provisional basis, because of the interim order of this Tribunal from December, 2021 onwards. The original application is accordingly allowed.” 6. Challenging Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, the petitioner-4 th respondent is before this Court in this original petition. 7. On 14.11.2024, when this original petition came up for admission, the matter was admitted on file. The 1 st respondent-applicant entered appearance through counsel. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 2 nd respondent. The Division Bench granted an interim stay against the operation of Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal. The said order was extended until further orders on 08.01.2025, which is still in force. 8. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-4 th respondent, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-applicant, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 2 nd respondent and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 3 and 4. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-4 th respondent would contend that while passing Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the legal and factual contentions raised by the 4 th respondent. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, which is perverse and patently illegal, warrants interference in this original petition. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner-4 th respondent would contend that while passing Ext.P7 order, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the legal and factual contentions raised by the 4 th respondent. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, which is perverse and patently illegal, warrants interference in this original petition. 10. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent-applicant would contend that Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal is one passed after taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, which is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warrants no interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 11. The learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission would reiterate the contentions raised in Ext.P2 reply statement filed in O.A.(EKM) No.1970 of 2021 and contend that the procedure adopted by the Public Service Commission cannot be said to be one contrary to the requirements of Rule 12A of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure. 12. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 13. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 14. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 14. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ] , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 15. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [ (2015) 12 SCC 39 ] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 16. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [ 2016 (1) KHC 1 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 17. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order of the Administrative 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 Administrative Tribunal has committed a manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the 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. As noticed by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024 in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, though the 4 th respondent (petitioner herein) claimed that she was having requisite experience, the Public Service Commission does not have any case that the impugned action was done taking note of the experience of the 4 th respondent. Even the 4 th respondent does not have a case that she had submitted the required experience certificate, in the prescribed format, at any time before the last date for receipt of the application prescribed in Annexure A1 notification, i.e., 15.05.2019. She does not even claimed it in her application. Annexure R4(a) certificate produced along with the reply statement dated 06.01.2023 (Ext.P4) is one issued on 17.01.2013, much after her advice and appointment. 19. The stand taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission, placing reliance on Rule 12A of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, was that preference can be given only if both the preferential qualifications are acquired by a candidate. Rule 12A reads thus; “12A. 19. The stand taken by the Kerala Public Service Commission, placing reliance on Rule 12A of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, was that preference can be given only if both the preferential qualifications are acquired by a candidate. Rule 12A reads thus; “12A. Where qualification is prescribed for a post, the ranked list relating to it shall be prepared in the manner stated below:- (i) In cases where minimum qualification is prescribed with the condition that candidates with certain additional qualification will be preferred, the Commission shall prepare only ranked list. Separate marks shall not be awarded for the preferential qualification. Between two candidates scoring the same number of marks at the written test/practical test or interview or both the candidates possessing the preferential qualifications shall be ranked above the candidate securing the same number of marks and not having the preferential qualification. (ii) In cases where the qualification for a post is so prescribed that candidates possessing a lower qualification will be selected only in the absence of candidates with certain higher qualification, the Commission shall prepare separate ranked list in respect of the candidates possessing higher qualification and the lower qualification.” 20. In the instant case, the preferential qualifications prescribed in Annexure A13 Special Rules and also in Annexure A1 notification dated 10.04.2014 issued by the Public Service Commission are (i) M.Phil Degree in Botany/Zoology from a recognised University; (ii) Two years' research/analytical experience in Botany/Zoology from a recognised institution. As noticed by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order, the preferential qualifications are given without a conjunction 'and'/'or'. Though the Public Service Commission mentioned M.Phil against the remarks column of the applicant in Annexure A10 ranked list and found the applicant more meritorious than the 4 th respondent, by assigning rank No.1 to the applicant, the Commission issued Annexure A11 erratum notification on 09.11.2021, based on its decision to give preference only to those having both the preferential qualifications. As already noticed hereinbefore, Annexure A10 ranked list is in respect of NCA vacancy for Scheduled Caste community. The document marked as Annexure A16, along with Ext.P6 rejoinder filed by the applicant dated 30.05.2024, to the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, is a copy of the ranked list for the post of Scientific Assistant (Biology) in Kerala Police Service (Forensic Science Laboratory). The document marked as Annexure A16, along with Ext.P6 rejoinder filed by the applicant dated 30.05.2024, to the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent in O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, is a copy of the ranked list for the post of Scientific Assistant (Biology) in Kerala Police Service (Forensic Science Laboratory). The said mother ranked list came into force with effect from 26.11.2014 and it is for filling up the NCA vacancies for Scheduled Caste community that the Public Service Commission published Annexure A10 ranked list. As noticed by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024, as evident from Annexure A16 mother ranked list, a decision that preference would be given only to those with both the preferential qualifications is taken for the first time, resulting in Annexure A11 erratum notification. In the remarks column of the main list of Annexure A16 mother ranked list, against rank Nos.3, 6, 24, 26 and 38, experience is noted, whereas against the names of rank Nos.4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 20, 27 and 32, M.Phil alone is shown. At the same time, rank Nos.1 and 3 in the supplementary list of Scheduled Caste are having M.Phil and experience and rank No.2 in that list is having only M.Phil. Therefore, as noticed by the Tribunal, it is only in respect of Annexure A10 ranked list published pursuant to Annexure A1 NCA notification, that the Public Service Commission has chosen to take a different procedure, without stating any reason for deviation from the procedure so far followed. 21. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal found that Annexure A11 erratum notification issued by the Public Service Commission, revising the rank of the applicant and the 4 th respondent, is illegal and the procedure adopted by the commission is unfair. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside Annexure A11 erratum notification and directed the Public Service Commission to act upon Annexure A10 ranked list and advised the applicant (1 st respondent herein), in the place of the 4 th respondent (petitioner herein). The reasoning of the Tribunal, as contained in paragraphs 12 to 14 of Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024 for allowing O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, is neither perverse nor patently illegal and it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any manifest error while allowing that original application. The reasoning of the Tribunal, as contained in paragraphs 12 to 14 of Ext.P7 order dated 09.10.2024 for allowing O.A.(EKM)No.1970 of 2021, is neither perverse nor patently illegal and it cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any manifest error while allowing that original application. In such circumstances, no interference of this Court is warranted on Ext.P7 order of the Tribunal, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.