JUDGMENT : Anil K. Narendran, J. The petitioners are the applicants in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at Ernakulam, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking an order to set aside Annexure A7 addendum notification dated 30.05.2025 issued by the 4 th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission; a declaration that no reservation under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, can be provided from Annexure A6 ranked list published by the 4 th respondent Public Service Commission for category No.290/2021, since reservation under the provisions of the said Act was not notified in Annexure A2 notification dated 16.08.2021 issued by the Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurveda); to set aside Annexure A9 notification published by the Public Service Commission regarding Additional Interview Programme for the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurveda), in the Kerala Drugs Control Department, which was scheduled to be held on 08.08.2025 at 9.45 a.m., to the extent it interviews physically disabled candidates included in Annexure A7 addendum notification. 2. On 05.08.2025, when O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025 came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed the following order; “Evidently, Annexure A7 Addendum Notification, which is impugned herein, is issued on the basis of an interim order passed by this Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, dated 12.03.2025. The said original applications are pending disposal before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal. If the applicants have got any grievance against the said interim order or against Annexure A7 Addendum Notification published, they have to seek appropriate remedy in those original applications itself, by getting impleaded therein. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are taking steps to get impleaded therein. 2. Counsel for the applicants raised apprehension that, if the candidates who are differently abled, additionally included in the short list through Annexure A7 Addendum Notification, are invited by the PSC to attend the interview scheduled on 08.08.2025, as notified under Annexure A9, and if those candidates are included in the ranked list and advised for appointment, contentions of the applicants will become fructified. 3. 3. We are of the considered opinion that, it is a matter which need to be agitated before this Tribunal in the pending original applications in which the interim order was passed (O.A.No.1401 of 2023 and connected case). If ultimately it is found by this Tribunal that candidates for whom reservation is provided under Annexure A8 Government Order are not entitled to seek appointment under the selection process initiated pursuant to Annexure A2 notification, their inclusion in the ranked list or advice if any made will become invalid. Therefore, the entire matter can be agitated in the original applications which are pending. Reserving liberty of the applicants to the above said extent, the original application is hereby disposed of by finding that the same is not maintainable in view of the interim order passed in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, dated 12.03.2025.” 3. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order dated 05.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, the petitioners- applicants are before this Court in this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners- applicants, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission for the 4 th respondent. 5. The issue that requires consideration in this original petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P4 order dated 05.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants would contend that while passing Ext.P4 order dated 05.08.2025 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, the Tribunal failed to consider the legal and factual contentions raised by the applicants in its correct perspective. Therefore, the said order of the Tribunal warrants interference in this original petition. 7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Kerala Public Service Commission would submit that valid reasons have been stated by the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order, for not entertaining O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, taking note of the pendency of O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023 and also the interim order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Tribunal in those original applications. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order is neither perverse nor patently illegal, which warrants no interference in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P4 order is neither perverse nor patently illegal, which warrants no interference in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. The document marked as Ext.P3 is an order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, whereby the Tribunal directed the Kerala Public Service Commission to issue addendum ranked list consisting of differently abled candidates among the candidates applied pursuant to Annexure A2 notification dated 16.08.2021 issued in respect of category No.290/2021, i.e., for the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurveda) in the Kerala Drugs Control Department. Annexure A6 ranked list published by the Public Service Commission, which came into force with effect from 10.01.2024 is one prepared pursuant to Annexure A2 notification. When the post of Drug Inspector (Ayurveda) in the Kerala Drugs Control Department was identified for reservation to differently abled candidates under the provisions of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Annexure A7 addendum notification was issued, whereby the ranked list of differently abled candidates for 4% reservation was published by the Public Service Commission. Taking note of the fact that Annexure A7 addendum notification is one issued pursuant to Ext.P3 interim order dated 12.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, the Tribunal passed Ext.P4 order dated 05.08.2025 in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, holding that the original application is not maintainable in view of Ext.P3 interim order dated 12.03.2025 of the Tribunal. When the challenge made in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025 centers around Annexure A7 addendum notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 12.03.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in passing Ext.P4 order in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, after reserving liberty as stated in paragraph 3 of that order, which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 2. We also notice the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners-applicants that the applicants have made arrangements to file an application for impleadment in O.A.Nos.1401 of 2023 and 1661 of 2023, on the file of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal at Thiruvananthapuram. 9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, no interference is warranted in Ext.P4 order dated 15.08.2025 of the Tribunal in O.A.(Ekm)No.1205 of 2025, since the reasoning of the Tribunal in the said order is neither perverse nor patently illegal. In the result, this original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.