JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. 1.The applicants 2 and 3 in O.A.No.1068 of 2021 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (the ‘Tribunal’ for short) filed this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , challenging Ext.P10 order dated 14.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application. 2. The petitioners and their co-applicants before the Tribunal are included in Annexure A1 ranked list dated 12.07.2018 published by the 5 th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission (‘PSC’ for short) for appointment of High School Assistant (Mathematics) in the Education Department in the Kottayam district. The petitioners and others approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1068 of 2021 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , contending that the existing vacancies to the post of High School Assistant (Mathematics) in various schools in Kottayam district were not reported by respondents 2 and 3 to the PSC. In the original application, the petitioners and the other applicants sought the following reliefs against the respondents; “(i) Direct the respondents 2 and 3 to report the existing available 13 vacancies of H.S.A. (Mathematics) for appointment from Annexure-A1 rank list before its expiry on 11.07.2021; (ii) Direct the respondents 4 and 5 to issue advice memo to the applicants, being the next ranked eligible candidates for appointment from Annexure-A1, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal; (iii) Direct 3 rd respondent to report the date of occurrence of existing 13 vacancies at (1) Govt. MRS, Ettumanoor, (2), Govt. HS, Panackachira, (3) THS, Theekoy, (4) THS, Kanjirappally, (5) Govt. VHSS, Vazhappilly and (6) Govt. DVHSS, Vechoor, (7) Govt. PTMHS, Velloor, Pampady, (8) AJJM HSS, Thalayolaparambu, (9) GTHS, Kurichi, (10) Govt. Boys HSS, Peruva, (11) SKV Govt. HSS, Neendoor, (12) Govt. VHSS, Murikkumvayal, and (13) Govt. HSS, Panamattom to the 4 th respondent; (iv) Direct 1 st & 2 nd respondents to create additional vacancies in the Post of H.S.A. (Mathematics) under 3 rd respondent pursuant to staff fixation order 2020-21 with date of occurrence before 11.07.2021 enabling the 4 th respondent to issue advise memo from Annexure-A1 rank list before its expiry; (v) Direct the 3 rd respondent to file a statement detailing the exact cadre strength, existing number of teachers under different streams, viz. PSC, IDT, Primary Teacher promotion and by transfer and the details of staff fixation data of academic year 2020-2021 and retirement vacancies till 30 June 2021 in the post of H.S.A. (Mathematics)”. 3. On 16.07.2021, when the original application came up for admission, by taking note of the fact that Annexure A1 ranked list is due to expire on 04.08.2021, the Tribunal passed Ext.P2 order directing the 3 rd respondent to provisionally report 13 vacancies of High School Assistant (Mathematics) to the 4 th respondent, District Officer of PSC, forthwith, at any rate, before the close of office hours on 29.07.2021. It was made clear in that order that the PSC need not issue orders until further orders, on the basis of the provisionally reported vacancies. 4. The 3 rd respondent filed a statement dated 23.07.2021 in the original application, contending that, as per the cadre strength of High School Assistant (Mathematics) in Kottayam district, the PSC hands are above 50%. Hence, there is no vacancy available in Kottayam district to be reported to the PSC. Again, the 3 rd respondent filed another detailed reply statement dated 18.11.2021 in the original application, producing therewith Annexure R3(a) document. In the second reply statement, the 3 rd respondent explained the cadre strength available under each category in separate tables and contended that instead of the sanctioned strength of 50%, the PSC hands are occupying 67.9%. Paragraphs 7 to 12 of that reply statement read thus; “7. It is respectfully submitted that there are 81 sanctioned posts in Kottayam District for HST (Maths). Out of these 81 sanctioned posts 77 teachers are working now and remaining 4 vacancies are also reported to PSC. Out of these 4 reported vacancies 2 vacancies kept for differently abled candidates and other 2 vacancies awaiting advise from PSC. The vacancies in Model Residential school can be filled by Director of General Education on the basis of request from the existing teachers. No other vacancies are existing in HST (Maths) in Kottayam District. The vacancies in Government VHSS Murikkumvayal, Government HSS Panamattom, SKV Government HSS Neendoor, Technical HS Teekoy are filled through PSC. The vacancy in PTM GHS Pampady filled through transfer and resultant vacancy at Government HS Kothala set apart for NAC. The Vacancy at Govt. HS Panackachira filled up by appointing an existing teacher who was return after LWA. 8. The vacancies in Government VHSS Murikkumvayal, Government HSS Panamattom, SKV Government HSS Neendoor, Technical HS Teekoy are filled through PSC. The vacancy in PTM GHS Pampady filled through transfer and resultant vacancy at Government HS Kothala set apart for NAC. The Vacancy at Govt. HS Panackachira filled up by appointing an existing teacher who was return after LWA. 8. It is respectfully submitted that during 2014-18 no ranklist for HST (Maths) have been existed and the percentage of direct recruitees (i.e PSC hands) were excess considering the cadre strength of HST (Maths) during the above period. Hence appointments were made normally from less cadre strength categories. As per note 3 of Rule 5 of KS & SSRS Part II whenever a ratio or percentage is fixed for different methods of appointment to a post, the number of vacancies to be filled up by candidates from each method shall be decided by applying the fixed ratio or percentage to the cadre strength of the post to which the recruitment/transfer is made and not to the vacancies existing at that time. True copy of Letter No.39986/J3/15/GEdn dated 14.10.2015 of the Additional Chief Secretary, General Education Department to the Director of Public Instruction, Thiruvananthapuram is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R3(a). The appointment of HST Maths made through PSC is above 50% of the cadre strength. It reveals that the respondents are not prevented the opportunity of the applicants. The present cadre strength for the post of HST (Maths) shown below: 9. As per the cadre strength 67.9% of teachers are appointed through PSC. It clearly shows that there is no dearth in the appointments of HST (Maths) from PSC. 10. It is respectfully submitted that only 4 vacancies are remaining for HST (Maths) which are already reported to PSC. Out of these 4 vacancies 2 vacancies are kept for differently abled candidates from the next ranklist and other 2 vacancies are also reported to PSC, it awaiting advise from PSC. There is no other vacancy available in Kottayam district. It may also submit that no vacancies are set apart for Inter District Transfer hence no vacancies available in Kottayam District that are reported non available candidates under IDT. 11. It is respectfully submitted that no vacancy arose due to HSST promotion since the promotion order is not published till now. 12. It may also submit that no vacancies are set apart for Inter District Transfer hence no vacancies available in Kottayam District that are reported non available candidates under IDT. 11. It is respectfully submitted that no vacancy arose due to HSST promotion since the promotion order is not published till now. 12. It is respectfully submitted that out of 81 sanctioned post 77 post were filled. Only 4 vacancies were remaining in which 2 vacancies set apart for differently abled candidates from the next rank list and 2 vacancies reported to PSC and not get advise from PSC. Since there are no other vacancy for HST (Maths) in Kottayam District the 3 rd respondent has provisionally reported 13 vacancies to PSC as per the direction of the Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A 1068 of 2021 dated 16.07.2021. Present position of the cadre strength for HST (Maths) as on 31.08.2021 is shown below: 5. The respondents 4 and 5 also filed a reply statement dated 03.03.2022 in the original application, taking the very same stand as that of the 3 rd respondent. 6. Along with a miscellaneous application filed as M.A.No.1876 of 2022, the petitioners and the other applicants in the original application produced Annexures A11 to A13 documents and along with M.A.No.746 of 2024, they produced Annexures A14 and A15 documents. Thereafter, the 3 rd respondent filed an objection dated 13.05.2024, producing therewith Annexures R3(b) to R3(e) documents. 7. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal by Ext.P10 impugned order dated 14.03.2025 dismissed the original application. In the impugned order, the Tribunal found that there is nothing on record to show that substantive vacancies were available for direct recruitment as contended by the applicants in the original application. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are now before this Court with this original petition. 8. Heard Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.P.C Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for PSC and Smt.Princy Xavier, the learned Senior Government Pleader. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the quota for direct recruitment cannot be limited to 50%, in the absence of qualified persons for by transfer appointment and inter-district transfer. The Tribunal failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the quota for direct recruitment cannot be limited to 50%, in the absence of qualified persons for by transfer appointment and inter-district transfer. The Tribunal failed to consider this aspect while passing the impugned order. The learned counsel argued that the availability of vacancy to accommodate the petitioners is pleaded in paragraph 9 of the original application, and moreover, from Annexure A5 transfer order dated 06.02.2021 issued by the 3 rd respondent, it is clear that there were vacancies in the schools mentioned in that order. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for PSC submitted that the ranked list in the instant case expired on 04.08.2021. A subsequent ranked list came into force with effect from 20.02.2023, which also expired on 19.02.2026. The NCA vacancies available were filled from the said ranked list. There is no material placed on record by the petitioners to accept their contentions regarding the availability of unreported vacancies. 11. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported the arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for PSC and submitted that there were no substantive vacancies that arose during the subsistence of the ranked list, and the non-availability of vacancies was clearly pleaded in the reply statement of the 3 rd respondent. 12. 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. 13. 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. 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." 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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 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. 19. We have perused the pleadings and materials on record and appreciated the arguments addressed at the Bar impugning Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal in the light of the judgments referred to supra. The claim of the petitioners is that there were unreported vacancies of High School Assistant (Mathematics) available in Kottayam district during the currency of Annexure A1 ranked list. But the perusal of the pleadings in the original application would show that, except a vague pleading to that effect, no material to substantiate the same was produced in the original application. The number of vacancies in different schools of Kottayam district and the date of arising of such vacancies were not pleaded in the original application. The pleading in the original application is to the effect that there are certain avenues of opening of vacancies when teachers included in the HSST by promotion ranked list are promoted. 20. From the reply statements filed by respondents 3 to 5, it is gatherable that the direct recruitees were occupying 67.9% of the cadre strength at the place of 50%, during the currency of Annexure A1 ranked list, which expired on 04.08.2021. As rightly found by the Tribunal, from the pleadings and materials placed on record, it is not proved that there were non-reported vacancies of High School Assistant (Mathematics) available for direct recruitment as contended by the petitioners and their co- applicants in the original application. As rightly found by the Tribunal, from the pleadings and materials placed on record, it is not proved that there were non-reported vacancies of High School Assistant (Mathematics) available for direct recruitment as contended by the petitioners and their co- applicants in the original application. The petitioners cannot base their claim on the happening of a contingency, that is, the promotion of the existing High School Assistants. 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 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.