JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.468 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A4 short list published by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission, containing the register number of candidates, who were found provisionally eligible to be called for interview, subject to verification of original documents, for selection to the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts), to the extent it does not include the register number of the applicant, as unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable; to direct the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission to issue erratum notification including the register number of the applicant in Annexure A4 short list, at the appropriate place; and to direct the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission to include the name of the applicant in the final ranked list to be published, based on the marks obtained by him in the selection process. 2. The document marked as Annexure A1 is the Gazette notification dated 30.11.2023 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts) - Category No.495/2023, with the last date of submission of application as 03.01.2024. Annexure A2 is the application details of the petitioner-applicant. The qualification prescribed in Annexure A1 notification for appointment as Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts) is First Class or Second Class Master's Degree in History of Arts with not less than 55% marks obtained from a recognised University. The qualification possessed by the applicant is Degree of Master of Fine Arts in History of Arts from Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal. In Annexure A4 short list, which was published by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 07.02.2025, the register number of the applicant is not included. Annexure A5 shows the profile of the applicant on the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Annexure A6 is a copy of the Government order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Higher Education (J) Department, wherein it is provided as follows; 3. In O.A.No.468 of 2025, the Kerala Public Service Commission was arrayed as the sole respondent. Annexure A5 shows the profile of the applicant on the website of the Kerala Public Service Commission. Annexure A6 is a copy of the Government order dated 21.02.2025 issued by the Higher Education (J) Department, wherein it is provided as follows; 3. In O.A.No.468 of 2025, the Kerala Public Service Commission was arrayed as the sole respondent. The respondent Commission filed Ext.P2 reply statement dated 15.10.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for. In the original application, the Tribunal passed an interim order dated 12.03.2025, whereby the petitioner-applicant was allowed to participate in the process of selection. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal by Ext.P3 order dated 17.02.2026, dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 7, 8 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P3 order read thus; “7. Admittedly, the applicant possesses an MFA in History of Arts issued by the Visba-Bharati University. The qualification notified in Annexure A1 is a Master's Degree in History of Arts. The respondent is willing to accept any degree which the State Government has accepted as equivalent to a Master's Degree in History of Arts. The State Government has not issued any order equating MFA in History of Arts with that of Master's Degree in History of Arts. On the other hand, vide Annexure A6 order, the Government has included MFA in History of Arts as a qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics. The respondent is willing to accept this qualification, but only with respect to notifications to be issued after the date of this order. 8. The various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court relied upon by the applicant are not on the subject. The issue under consideration is not whether the Master's Degree in History of Arts issued by the Visba- Bharati University requires any equivalency. Since the degree held by the applicant is different from the one notified as the qualification, the PSC is insisting for equivalency. The applicant has failed to produce any such equivalency certificate. Accepting MFA in History of Arts as a qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in tune with Annexure A6 can be made applicable only to selections notified after 21.02.2025. The contentions of the applicant are not found sustainable. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.” 4. The applicant has failed to produce any such equivalency certificate. Accepting MFA in History of Arts as a qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in tune with Annexure A6 can be made applicable only to selections notified after 21.02.2025. The contentions of the applicant are not found sustainable. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed.” 4. Challenging Ext.P3 order dated 17.02.2026 of the Tribunal, the appellant is before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant and the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant would contend that Ext.P3 order dated 17.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.468 of 2025 is one passed without adverting to the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicant. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order is perverse and patently illegal, which warrants interference in this original petition. The contentions raised by the applicant with specific reference to Annexure A6 Government order dated 21.02.2025 were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission would submit that, the Tribunal, after considering the legal and factual contentions raised by the Public Service Commission in Ext.P2 reply statement, arrived at a conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in O.A.No.468 of 2025. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order, which is neither perverse nor patently illegal, warrants no interference in this original petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 8. 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. 9. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 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. 14. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant is that the applicant, who holds Degree of Master of Fine Arts awarded by Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal in History of Arts, as evidenced by Annexure A3 Degree Certificate dated 27.04.2012, has to be considered as a person holding the qualification prescribed in Annexure A1 notification dated 30.11.2023 issued by the respondent Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics, in view of Annexure A6 Government order dated 21.02.2025, whereby it was ordered that Master of Visual Arts in Art History awarded by Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda and Master of Fine Arts in History of Art awarded by Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal can be considered as the prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts). On the other hand, the contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission is that the petitioner-applicant does not possess the qualification required in Annexure A1 notification dated 30.11.2023. The Academic Committee of the Kerala Public Service Commission had done a comparison and found that not even 20 per cent of the syllabi of the two courses matched. Vide Annexure A6 Government order dated 21.02.2025, the Government has ordered to include Master of Visual Arts in Art History awarded by Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda and Master of Fine Arts in History of Art awarded by Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal as the prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts). The said order, which does not contemplate equivalency with the qualification prescribed for the said post, will have only prospective effect, which will be applicable to recruitment notifications issued by the Public Service Commission after the said date. 15. Having considered the rival contentions, the Tribunal noticed that the qualification prescribed in Annexure A1 notification dated 30.11.2023 for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts) is First Class or Second Class Master’s Degree in History of Arts with not less than 55% marks obtained from a recognised University. The qualification possessed by the petitioner-applicant is Master of Fine Arts in History of Art. The petitioner secured the said Master’s Degree from Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal. The decision taken by the State, as discernible from Annexure A6 order dated 21.02.2025, is to include Master of Visual Arts in Art History awarded by Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda and Master of Fine Arts in History of Art awarded by Visva-Bharathi University, Santiniketan, West Bengal, as the prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts). A reading of Annexure A6 Government order dated 21.02.2025 would make it explicitly clear that the qualifications prescribed in the said Government order cannot be made applicable in the case of the recruitment covered by Annexure A1 notification dated 30.11.2023 issued by the respondent Public Service Commission, as per which, the last date for submission of applications was 03.01.2024. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing anything on the legality or otherwise of Annexure A6 Government order, which is one issued by the Higher Education (J) Department. 16. We also notice that though the reliefs sought for in O.A.No.468 of 2025 filed before the Tribunal are in respect of recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts), State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned was not arrayed as a respondent in that original application. 17. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant is that since the grievance of the applicant is against non-inclusion of his register number in Annexure A4 short list published by the Kerala Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts), and for other consequential reliefs, the applicant has chosen to file O.A.No.468 of 2025 before the Tribunal, arraying the Kerala Public Service Commission as the sole respondent. 18. Rule 4B inserted to Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, vide the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Amendment Rules, 2011, notified by G.S.R.188(E) dated 15.03.2021 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, which deals with addition of parties, reads thus; “Rule 4B. Addition of Parties – All persons directly affected shall be made parties to the application. Where such persons are numerous, one or more of them may with the permission of the Tribunal, on application made for the purpose, be impleaded on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so affected; but notice of the original application shall, on admission, be given to all such persons either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Tribunal in each case may direct: Provided that in cases where the State Government is a party, the Secretary to the Government Department concerned shall be arrayed as party representing the Government: Provided further that if the subject matter of the application relates to two or more Government Departments or, if the application is of such a nature, the disposal of which warrants information from two or more Government Departments, the Chief Secretary to Government and the Secretaries to those Government Departments shall be made as party representing the Government.” (underline supplied) 19. In view of the provisions under Rule 4B of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010, in an original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, all persons directly affected shall be made parties. In cases where the State Government is a party, the applicant has to comply with the requirements of the first and the second provisos to Rule 4B of the said Rules. 20. In cases where the State Government is a party, the applicant has to comply with the requirements of the first and the second provisos to Rule 4B of the said Rules. 20. When the issue raised in O.A.No.468 of 2025 is regarding the prescribed qualification for the post of Lecturer in Arts, History and Aesthetics in the Technical Education Department (College of Fine Arts), the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned is a necessary party to that original application. Therefore, in O.A.No.468 of 2025, the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, and also the Director, Directorate of Technical Education, should have been arrayed as the respondents. The contention to the contra raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant can only be rejected as untenable and we do so. 21. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P3 order dated 17.02.2026 for dismissing O.A.No.468 of 2025 cannot be said to be either perverse or patently illegal and it cannot also be said that while passing such an order, the Tribunal has committed any manifest error. Therefore, no interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted on Ext.P3 order dated 17.02.2026 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.468 of 2025. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.