JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners, who had undergone MBBS course as students sponsored by the Employees State Insurance Corporation in the Medical/Dental Colleges managed by the said Corporation, have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.375 of 2024, seeking an order to quash Annexure A6 memorandum dated 10.08.2023 issued by the Medical Education Cell of the Corporation to the extent it instructs to compulsorily relieve the bond of Junior Residents, who have joined bond service in 2023 in Employees State Insurance Corporation Institutions, on completion of 1 year bond service, irrespective of the duration of the bond executed. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that they are entitled to continue as Junior Residents for a duration of three years bond period, as evident from Annexures A1 to A3, with a facility of option prevailed as per condition No.2.4 in Annexure A5 memorandum dated 28.07.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent Deputy Director (ME), Medical Education Cell, instead of compulsorily relieving them on completion of 1 year service, based on Annexure A6 memorandum dated 10.08.2023 issued by the Medical Education Cell of the Corporation; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Annexure A7 request dated 20.05.2024 and another request dated 04.06.2024 made by the 1st petitioner and permit them to opt to continue on the original bond period. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 2 to 5 filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 24.07.2024 and Ext.P4 additional reply statement dated 06.09.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for in the original application. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal declined the reliefs sought for in the original application by Ext.P1 order dated 04.11.2024. The reasoning of the Tribunal, as contained in paragraphs 14 to 19 of Ext.P1 order read thus; “14. After referring to the service bond, it was noted that the bond prescribed that it was for one year period only. After one year the candidate would be relieved from the bond service irrespective of the bond duration they have signed. No extension will be given. Relying on it and the various clauses in the bond, the Delhi High Court concluded that it was a unilateral document executed by the petitioners and their respective sureties. The representative of the medical college/dental college would sign the same as a witness only and not as executor party. No extension will be given. Relying on it and the various clauses in the bond, the Delhi High Court concluded that it was a unilateral document executed by the petitioners and their respective sureties. The representative of the medical college/dental college would sign the same as a witness only and not as executor party. The bonds were got executed from the applicants in lieu of the expenses incurred by the ESIC on education of the petitioners. It was held that the bond clearly stipulated the monetary consequences of executors refusing or failing to serve the ESIC and that the bond, even implicitly, not even explicitly, did not stipulate any duty on the part of the ESIC to avail or seek services from the executors thereof, much less to provide service to the executors. It was held that unlike the case of the executors, the bond did not stipulate or even contemplate any consequence, monetary or otherwise, befalling on the ESIC, in case the service of the executors were not availed for the full period. 15. On the above basis, the High Court held that the bond did not and could not create any right of employment in the petitioners. The petitioners having already enjoyed the benefit in the form of expenses incurred by the ESIC on the education, the grant of right of employment in them on the basis of the said bond would be granting them double benefit, which was nowhere contemplated in the said bond nor justified in any manner. 16. It was held that merely because at a subsequent stage ESIC opted to reduce the period, it cannot be read to their detriment, much less to the benefit of the applicant in the form of creation of right to employment under ESIC. It was completely a matter of discretion of ESIC to avail service of the bond executors for any party depending upon requirement, though that period could not be more than the period prescribed in the said bond. By reducing the bond period to one year or less than one year, the ESIC had only shortened the benefit which it could avail from the bond and the ESIC cannot be compelled to avail service of the bond executors for the complete bond period irrespective of their requirement. By reducing the bond period to one year or less than one year, the ESIC had only shortened the benefit which it could avail from the bond and the ESIC cannot be compelled to avail service of the bond executors for the complete bond period irrespective of their requirement. There is not even a whiff of any stipulation in the said bond to the effect that ESIC cannot reduce the terms of tenure they want to avail out of the said bond, it was held. It was also noticed that the applicants were conscious that the bonds did not create any right of employment in their favour. 17. Evidently, the bond is only a unilateral document with certain undertakings given by the bounden. Absolutely no obligation is created on the part of ESIC. The only obligation, if any, was to permit them to undergo their course of study for MBBS/BDS at a reduced rate which ESIC has performed. In so far as service during the bond period, the bond cannot be treated as a contract of employment being not a bi-lateral agreement. It is true that various benefits available to normal employment was available to doctors employed by the ESIC. That does not take the bond service to the level of a service contract. 18. Though the learned counsel for the applicants vehemently contended that principle of promissory estoppel was applicable and that applicants had a legitimate expectation, in the light of clear finding that service bond only creates a unilateral obligation, the question of any promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation does not arise. The applicants were conscious that it did not create any obligation on the respondents. They were fully aware that they were availing benefit of a full time employment by undergoing service engagement. Bond encumbered obligation only on the petitioners to serve the ESIC according to the requirement of the latter. The concept of promissory estoppel will arise only when a promise is made by the opposite side based on which the other side alters his position to his detriment. No such promise arise in the case at hand. 19. Bond encumbered obligation only on the petitioners to serve the ESIC according to the requirement of the latter. The concept of promissory estoppel will arise only when a promise is made by the opposite side based on which the other side alters his position to his detriment. No such promise arise in the case at hand. 19. Having considered this we are inclined to hold that the bond service cannot be raised to the level of contract of employment and no obligation is cast on the respondents to extract service of the employees for the full period, which has been undertaken by the applicants unilaterally. Hence, we find no reason to grant any relief. The Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs. The interim order stands vacated.” 3. Challenging Ext.P1 order dated 04.11.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A.No.374 of 2024, the petitioners-applicants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India in charge for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation for respondents 2 to 5. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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 Central Administrative Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Central 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 Central 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 Central 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. 11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants, placing reliance on Annexures A5, R2(a) and R2(b) memorandums issued by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, regarding revision of bond conditions in respect of undergraduate (MBBS/BDS) students in ESI Medical/Dental Colleges would contend that the stand taken by the Corporation in Annexure A6 memorandum dated 10.08.2023, by reducing the bonded obligation to 1 year is per se arbitrary and patently illegal. 12. We also heard arguments of the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation, who would submit that the reasoning of the Tribunal in the impugned order warrants no interference in this original petition, in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation would point out that the petitioners-applicants have already been relieved from bonded obligation on 04.11.2024 and 05.11.2024, respectively. 14. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation would point out that the petitioners-applicants have already been relieved from bonded obligation on 04.11.2024 and 05.11.2024, respectively. 14. As discernible from the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, the bonded obligation for the petitioners and similarly situated persons, who had undergone undergraduate courses in medical education, i.e., MBBS/BDS course in the Medical/Dental Colleges under the management of the Employees State Insurance Corporation was initially for a period of 5 years. The same was reduced to 3 years and it is thereafter that it was reduced to 1 year by Annexure A6 memorandum dated 10.08.2023. The bonded obligation is one insisted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation only in respect of dependents of insured persons. There is a quota for the wards of insured persons for MBBS/BDS course. Such wards are getting admission for MBBS/BDS course against such a quota, in which they are undergoing the course, without payment of any fee or other expenses. In terms of the bonded obligation, they are bound to serve in any of the institutions under the Corporation for the specified period, since the corporation has agreed to incur their expenses for undergoing MBBS/BDS course subject to that condition. The specific clause to that effect in the format of the bond prescribed in Annexure A5 memorandum dated 28.07.2020, reads thus; “and whereas the Corporation have agreed to incur the expenses on condition that after successful completion of the course of study the bounden shall serve any of the institution, of the Corporation or of ESI Scheme of the State Government, as the case may be, for a period of one year anywhere in India and also subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter appearing and the bounden and the surety/sureties have agreed to the same.” 15. When the Employees State Insurance Corporation has taken a decision to reduce the bonded obligation to 1 year, instead of 3 years, the petitioners-applicants cannot have a legal grievance for redressal. In Ext.P1 order dated 04.11.2024 in O.A.No.375 of 2024, the Tribunal has also noted the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation that Regular Recruitment of General Duty Medical Officers of the Corporation has already been done. Accordingly, 890 doctors have been selected and they are expected to join service in August 2024. In Ext.P1 order dated 04.11.2024 in O.A.No.375 of 2024, the Tribunal has also noted the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees State Insurance Corporation that Regular Recruitment of General Duty Medical Officers of the Corporation has already been done. Accordingly, 890 doctors have been selected and they are expected to join service in August 2024. In such circumstances, Student Junior Residents cannot be accommodated. 16. As already noticed hereinbefore, the applicants who had undergone MBBS/BDS Course in the Medical/Dental Colleges managed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, after getting admission under the quota earmarked for the wards of insured persons, who had undergone the said course without incurring any expenditure towards fee and other expenses, have no legal right to challenge Annexure A6 memorandum dated 10.08.2023, whereby the bonded obligation was reduced from 3 years to 1 year. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal found that the petitioners-applicants are not entitled to the reliefs sought for. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P1 order is neither perverse nor patently illegal and it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error while arriving at such a finding. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.