Judgment Hon'ble PANWAR, J.— By the instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short "the RSRTC" hereinafter) has challenged the award Annexure-6 dated 15th May, 2000 passed by the respondent No.2, the Judge, Industrial Disputes Tribunal, Bikaner (for short "the Tribunal" hereinafter). The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the respondent No. 1 raised an industrial dispute upon which the State Government of Rajasthan referred the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal by notification dated 14th October, 1997. The issue referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Tribunal was as to whether non-grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service to the respondent-Workman was valid or not? On receipt of the reference, the notices were served upon the parties and the respondent-Workman filed the statement of claim. A reply thereto was filed by the petitioner-RSRTC. The Tribunal adjudicated the dispute and answered that denial of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 years of service to the respondent-Workman from his initial date of appointment on the post of Conductor is illegal and therefore, directed the petitioner-RSRTC to grant the selection scale to the respondent-Workman on completion of 9 and 18 years of service from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Conductor i.e. from 1st March, 1975. The Tribunal also held that counting the satisfactory period of service for grant of selection grade scale 9, 18 and 27 is to be treated from the dated of initial appointment of the post of Conductor for which the respondent-Workman claimed the grant of selection scale and not from the date of appointment on the post of LDC. Hence, the writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy is no more res-integra in view of the Division Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Chomu House, Jaipur vs. Bal Mukund Sharma & Ors., D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 55/2004 decided on 3rd April, 2008. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the respondent-Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh & Anr. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even the respondent-Tribunal relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh & Anr. 1998(3) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 1 but that decision also in para 7 clearly mentions that grant of selection scale by circular dated 25th January, 1992 which applies for the employees of the State government and the circular dated 27th April, 1993 which is para-materia to the circular dated 25th January, 1992 makes it clear that service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre in accordance with provisions contained in the recruitment Rules. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even the Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bal Mukund Sharma & Ors. (supra) also taken a view that the period of 9, 18 and 27 years under the circular shall be counted from the date of their appointment in the existing cadre and not from the date of their initial appointment and therefore, according the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance on the decision referred therein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Workman has supported the award impugned and contended that firstly, the respondent-Workman was appointed by the petitioner vide Annexure-1 on the post of Conductor but he has been working and discharging the duties of the clerk and therefore, the respondent-Workman should be treated to be a clerk from the initial date of his appointment i.e. 1st March, 1975. It is further contended that similarly situated person, namely, Yusuf Ali Khan, who was initially engaged on the post of clerk has been granted selection scale from the date of his initial appointment and this fact has been considered by the respondent-Tribunal and therefore, the learned counsel submits that the respondent-Workman deserves the same treatment which has been given to Yusuf Ali Khan, who was initially appointed on the post of clerk. Learned counsel for the respondent-Workman further submits that through the cadre of Conductor and the Lower Division Clerk are different as has been admitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal also having considered that there are two cadres but according to learned counsel for the respondent, though the respondent-workman was appointed on the post of Conductor in different cadre then of the LDC but he is working as LDC and therefore, for the purpose of calculating satisfactory period of the service for grant of selection grade scale 9, 18 and 27 is to be treated from the date of his initial appointment on the post of Conductor i.e. from 1st March, 1975. Learned counsel claims the same treatment, which has been given to Yusuf Ali Khan on the strength of Article 14 and 16 to the constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent-Workman has relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Farooq Ahmed & Anr., 2005(1) RLW (Raj.) 565 and in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur & Anr., 2008(3) RLW 2299. Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that scope of the interference while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 38 . 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The petitioner has placed on record Annexure-1 appointment post of Conductor dated 1st March, 1975. It has not been disputed by the petitioner-Employer that the respondent-Workman has been working with the petitioner on the post of Conductor since his date of appointment i.e. 1st March, 1975. However, subsequent thereto, the applications were sough for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk and the respondent applied for the said post and ultimately, underwent the type test etc. and was selected and appointed on the post of LDC w.e.f. 2nd November, 1988. 7. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan & Anr. However, subsequent thereto, the applications were sough for recruitment on the post of Lower Division Clerk and the respondent applied for the said post and ultimately, underwent the type test etc. and was selected and appointed on the post of LDC w.e.f. 2nd November, 1988. 7. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan & Anr. (supra) while considering the circular dated 25th january, 1992 issued by the State Government authorising the grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of satisfactory service to the employees who over that period have not been offered promotion, the Division Bench of this Court held that the order/circular dated 25.1.1992 prescribing and granting selection grades on completion of 9, 18 and 26 years of service is with a view to provide relief to the employees covered under the circular, who are not having promotional benefits and facing stagnancy in their service. As per the circular, first Selection Grade is to be granted from the day following the day on which one completes services of 9 years. Similarly, second selection grade is to be granted from the date following the day on which one completes service of 18 years and third selection grade from the day following the day on which one completes 26 years. The Circular makes it clear in para 3 that service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre in accordance with provisions contained in the recruitment Rules. Then, para 7 of the circular provides that selection grades in terms of the Circular shall be granted only to those employees whose record of service is satisfactory. The record of service which makes one eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority shall be considered to be satisfactory for the purpose of grant of the selection grades. 8. The notification dated 27th April, 1993 issued by the petitioner-RSRTC under which the respondent-Workman claimed the grant of selection scale is para-meteria to that of notification dated 25th January, 1992 issued by the State Government is respect of the employees of the State Government. The notification dated 27th April, 1993 has been placed on record as Annexure-3. 8. The notification dated 27th April, 1993 issued by the petitioner-RSRTC under which the respondent-Workman claimed the grant of selection scale is para-meteria to that of notification dated 25th January, 1992 issued by the State Government is respect of the employees of the State Government. The notification dated 27th April, 1993 has been placed on record as Annexure-3. The notification dated 27th April, 1993, in para 3, clearly provides that the service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre in accordance with the provisions contained in the Recruitment Regulations. Thus, the service for the purpose of grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service to the employees of the petitioner-RSRTC, who have not been offered/granted promotion, has to be counted from the date of their initial appointment in the existing cadre. The word "existing cadre" though has been considered by this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bal Mukund Sharma (Supra) however the pleadings of the language used in para 3 of the notification dated 27th April, 1993 is abundantly clear that notification dated 27th April, 1993 is abundantly clear that existing cadre/service would mean the service in existing cadre. 9. A Division of this Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bal Mukund Sharma & Ors. (supra) considered the almost identical controversy. In that case, the respondent-writ petitioners therein were initially appointed as Conductors in the pay scale No. 7, revised from 490-840 to 880-1680 w.e.f. 1.9.1986. The Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 came into existence and it was the case of the writ petitioners that a note was appended in Table No. 7 i.e. Pay Scale No. 7 that the existing employee on reaching scale on Rs. 955/- and Rs. 1225/- shall get jump and shall be fixed at Rs. 1224/- and Rs. 1400/- respectively on the date of his next annual increment. Under Rule 9 of the Pay Scale Rules, 1987, the Conductors were entitled to submit their option of the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 as to whether they intended to continue in the existing pay scale. The petitioners therein were appointed as LDC in November, 1989 but according to writ petitioners, they were discharging the duties as Conductor and the post of Conductor being inter-changeable with LDC. The petitioners therein were appointed as LDC in November, 1989 but according to writ petitioners, they were discharging the duties as Conductor and the post of Conductor being inter-changeable with LDC. In the writ petition filed by them, learned Single Judge held that since the writ petitioners were already existing employees, they will be entitled to the benefit of selection scale on completion 9, 18 and 27 years of service after passing the type test but from the date of their initial appointment in the Corporation and that part of the order dated 13th October, 2003 passed by learned Single Judge came to be challenged before the Division Bench by way of an appeal. The Division Bench of this Court noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondent in the writ petition invited applications for the post of LDC from those eligible persons, who were working in the Corporation as Conductors. The fact that the writ petitioners were working as Conductors prior to that circular was not in dispute. it was also not in dispute that they were appointed as LDC in the month of November, 1988 on the probation inter-alia on the condition that they shall have to pass type test within one year and their next annual grade increment shall be released after passing the type test. The order of appointment protected the pay of those employees, who were received their salary more than that was fixed for the post of LDC. After having considered the circular dated 27th April, 1993, referred hereinabove, entitling the employees of the petitioner-RSRTC for granting of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of satisfactory service, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in para 8 of the judgment observed as under:- "Having considered the aforesaid circular carefully, we find that the direction issued by the Single Judge that the petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of 9, 18 and 27 years under the circular dated 27.4.1993 from the date of their initial appointment in the Corporation cannot be sustained. Clause 2(i) of the Circular in so far as it relates to the first selection grade provides that the first selection grade provides that the first selection grade shall be granted immediately from the next day of completion of 9 years in his existing cadre if he has not got promotion earlier. Clause 2(i) of the Circular in so far as it relates to the first selection grade provides that the first selection grade provides that the first selection grade shall be granted immediately from the next day of completion of 9 years in his existing cadre if he has not got promotion earlier. Existing cadre surely and without doubt means the cadre in LDC. By no stretch of imagination the service rendered by the petitioners as Conductor could have been counted for the grant of benefit of first selection grade to be given in the post of LDC. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the post of Conductors and LDCs were interchangeable having same pay scale and, therefore, the petitioners case is not affected even if they were appointed as LDC only in the month of November, 1988 since they were earlier employees in the Corporation as Conductors. We have already noticed above that it was pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Corporation that the petitioners who were working as Conductors applied for appointment to the post of LDC and they were given appointment w.e.f. 1.11.1988. Revised Pay Scale Rules were made effective from 1.9.1988. At that time, the petitioners were not even born in the cadre of LDC. How could in the circumstances the petitioners be given benefit of first selection grade under the circular dated 27.4.1993 from the date of the appointment as Conductors in the Corporation. Their service in the Corporation as Conductors could not have been counted for the benefit of first selection grade in the cadre of LDC vide circular dated 27.4.1993. Similar position holds good for the second selection and third selection grade which is granted on completion of 18 years and 27 years respectively provided they have not got two promotions earlier as might be available in the existing cadre. The circular dated 27.4.1993 does not contemplate the benefit of first selection grade, second selection grade and third selection grade by treating the length of employee simplicitor but it is given to those employees who have not got promotion (one, two or three) as the case may be in the existing cadre during the period of 9, 18 and 27 years. It is in this back-drop, the expression 'existing cadre' has to be understood. It is in this back-drop, the expression 'existing cadre' has to be understood. It is pertinent to notice that there is no challenge to the circular dated 27.4.1993. It could not have been as it is under this circular that the petitioners are seeking benefit of first selection grade." 10. It was further held by the Division Bench of this Court that there is no hesitation in holding that not only that the petitioners for getting the benefit under the circular dated 27th April, 1993 are required to successfully pass type test but also they must have completed the period of service mentioned therein in the existing cadre and on that premises, the order of learned Single Judge came to be set aside to the extent it has been directed that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of first selection grade, second selection grade and third selection grade under the circular dated 27.4.1993 from the date of their initial appointment. 11. The Full Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Farooq Ahmed & Anr. (supra), a question came to be referred to the Full Bench whether the period of ad hoc service rendered by an employee should be calculated for the purpose of granting selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service or whether such service rendered prior to the date of regular appointment should not be counted?" The Full Bench was of the view that where a person is appointed on ad hoc/temporary basis in accordance with the rules and in time scale, the period of ad hoc/temporary services rendered by him/her, before his/her regularization, should be counted for the purpose of grant of selection grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service, as the case may be. 12. In State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Judge, Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur & Anr. (supra), this Court considered the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and held that wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. (supra), this Court considered the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and held that wide jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 has to be exercised with great circumspection. The High Court cannot constitute itself into an appellate Court over Tribunals. Article 226/227 is a device to secure and advance justice and not otherwise. It was further held that the High Court exercising the power of judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational and on that premises came to the conclusion that in an application for a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of for quashing an award of an Industrial Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court is very limited. It can quash the award, interalia, when the Tribunal has committed an error of law apparent on the face of record or when the finding of facts of the Tribunal is wholly perverse. It is settled law that in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court acts only in a supervisory capacity and not as an appellate tribunal. Lit does not review the evidence upon which the inferior tribunal proposed to base its conclusion, it simply demolished the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or manifestly erroneous, but does not, as a rule, substitute its own view for those of the inferior tribunal. 13. In Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors. (supra) while considering the scope of Article 227 as a supervisory jurisdiction of High Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- "The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority" and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case, there was in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court of tribunal purports to be based or to correct error of law in the decision." 14. It is true that a challenge has been made by the petitioner-RSRTC against an award passed by the Tribunal purporting to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the scope of supervisory jurisdiction as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is limited. However, if the error apparent on the face of record is pointed out and the Tribunal has misread the evidence produced before it and applied a wrong principle of law then as to whether the judicial review in such a situation is open under Article 227 or not has been considered time and again and what the Court is required to see is to do the substantial justice between the parties. 15. In the instant case, indisputedly, the respondent-Workman came to be appointed on the post of Conductor vide Annexure-1 w.e.f. 1st March, 1975. The channel of promotion from the post of Conductor as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner-RSRTC is the Assistant Traffic Inspector and then Traffic Inspector etc. For the post of LDC, the promotional avenue is the Upper Division Clerk, Office Assistant and so on. Thus, both the posts i.e. Conductor and LDC are of different cadre and this has been admitted by the respondent-Workman before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the award impugned has also noticed that the post of conductors and LDCs are of two different cadres. Thus, both the posts i.e. Conductor and LDC are of different cadre and this has been admitted by the respondent-Workman before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the award impugned has also noticed that the post of conductors and LDCs are of two different cadres. the language of circular dated 27th April, 1993 in clear terms entitles an employee of the petitioner-RSRTC for grant of selection scales, if he has not been granted promotion on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of satisfactory service and para 3 of the circular dated 27th April, 1993 clearly provides that service of 9, 18 and 27 years, as the case may be, shall be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre in accordance with provisions contained in the recruitment Rules. Even, para 2(i), (ii) and (iii) of the circular also provides that the selection grade shall be granted from the day following the day on which one completes 9, 18 and 27 years of service provided that the employee has not got two promotions earlier as might be available in his existing cadre. Thus, the circular emphasis the word "existing cadre" which means the cadre for which an employee is eligible for grant of the selection scales. Even the Tribunal relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Kuldeep Singh & Anr. (supra) wherein the Division Bench of this Court in para 7 clearly says that selection scale is available from the date of first appointment in the existing service cadre. In the instant case, the existing service cadre of the respondent-Workman is LDC and he came to be appointed as LDC on 2nd November, 1988 and therefore, for the purpose of calculating satisfactory period of service for grant of selection grade scale of 9, 18 and 27 years, the initial date of his appointment is to be taken as 2nd November, 1988. 16. In this view of the matter since the controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by a Division Bench decision in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bal Mukund Sharma & Ors. (supra) and the facts of this case is almost identical, therefore, in my view, there is no reason to take different view to that taken by the Division Bench of this Court. (supra) and the facts of this case is almost identical, therefore, in my view, there is no reason to take different view to that taken by the Division Bench of this Court. In the circumstances, therefore, the award impugned Annexure-6 directing the writ petitioner to the extent that the respondent-Workman is entitled to the benefit of first, second and third selection scale in pursuance of the circular dated 27th April, 1993, w.e.f. 1st March, 1975, the date of his initial appointment on the post of Conductor, cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 17. Accordingly, the award impugned Annexure-6 is set aside to the extent it has been directed that the respondent-Workman is entitled to the benefit of first, second and third selection scale in pursuance of the circular dated 27th April, 1993 w.e.f. 1st March, 1975, the date of his initial appointment on the post of Conductor. It is made clear that the respondent-Workman is entitle for the selection grade scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of satisfactory service under the circular dated 27th April, 1993 and the period of 9, 18 and 27 years of service shall be counted from the date of his appointment in the cadre of LDC i.e. 2nd November, 1988. 18. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. Stay petition stands disposed of.