Kerala High Court

Bidhula Balan vs The State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025

WA NO. 2490 OF 2025




                                                1
                                                                                2025:KER:80370


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                                &

                        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

                  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                                       WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

           AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2025 IN 2/2025 IN WP(C) NO.38555 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT

                                           OF KERALA


APPELLANT/S:

                 BIDHULA BALAN
                 AGED 28 YEARS
                 D/O BALAN, CHARUVILAYIL, LAHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689662


                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.K.SHAJ
                 SMT.BEENA N.KARTHA
                 SRI.ARUN CHAND
                 SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
                 SHRI.KEVIN JAMES
                 SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
                 SMT.GOPIKA GOPAL
                 SMT.ARCHANA P.P.




RESPONDENT/S:

       1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                 REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHEDULED
                 CASTE DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN -
                 695001
 WA NO. 2490 OF 2025




                                             2
                                                                             2025:KER:80370


       2       THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PALIKARA ROAD, THIRUVALLA,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689101

       3       THE TAHSILDAR
               RANNI, TALUK OFFICE, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT., PIN - 689672

       4       KERALA INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT STUDIES OF
               SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (KIRTADS)
               REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF KIRTADS, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE.,
               PIN - 673017

       5       THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695004

               BY MR.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
               MR. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC


       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 25.10.2025, THE COURT ON 28.10.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 2490 OF 2025




                                            3
                                                                         2025:KER:80370



                                       JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard C.M. Appln No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. The

appeal has been filed with a delay of 231 days. Having perused the

reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application to

condone the delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made

out to condone the delay. Hence, delay is condoned, and the appeal is

heard finally.

2. The present intra-Court Appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala

High Court Act 1958 assails the interim order dated 27.01.2025 passed in

I.A. No.2/2025 in W.P.(C) No.38555/2024, whereby the learned Single

Judge has passed the following order:

"The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submits that the petitioner's prayer in the application to direct the fifth respondent to accept the petitioner's provisional certificate cannot be accepted because, as per the notification published in 2023, it is specifically stated that the original caste certificate has to be produced at the time of verification. Ultimately, if the petitioner does not succeed WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

2025:KER:80370

in producing the original caste certificate, one post would be lost. The learned Standing Counsel seeks a week's time to file a counter affidavit.

2. In view of the above submission, I am not inclined to pass an interim order as prayed in the application. Hence, the prayer in the application is declined.

Post on 31.01.2025."

3. The appellant had filed the writ petition praying for the

following reliefs:

"I. to declare that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community of Malaya-Pandaram;

II. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to issue a provisional community certificate so as to enable the petitioner to upload the same for applying for the LP School teacher post in Idukki District through the PSC to enable the PSC to include the name of the petitioner in the ranked category in the reserved category for Scheduled Tribe communities for the post of LP School Teacher (Malayalam Medium) under Category No.709/2023;

III. to dispense with the filing of the translated version of the vernacular documents;

IV. to pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and V. to award the costs of this petition to the petitioner."

WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

2025:KER:80370

4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the

appellant's provisional certificate cannot be accepted as per the

notification published in 2023 since it specifically states that the original

caste certificate has to be produced at the time of verification. The

interim relief prayed for was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant

has filed the present writ appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer

and submitted that the present writ appeal is not maintainable, as the

interim order does not finally decide the issue involved in the main writ

petition. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on that ground

alone.

6. Heard Mr Bharat Vijay P learned Counsel for the appellant,

Mr Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the State

and Mr P.C. Sasidharan learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public

Service Commission.

7. Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed against an WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

2025:KER:80370

interim order which is not of a final nature. However, at this juncture,

we would like to address how the Apex Court dealt with the concept of

interlocutory order while dealing with the appeals preferred under the

Letters Patent. We are conscious that the appeals under the Letters

Patent are different from the appeals provided under the Kerala High

Court Rules, 1971, but the decisions rendered by the Apex Court are

instructive to understand the nature and character of an interlocutory

order. In Midnapore Peoples' Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Chunilal Nanda1, it

has been held as under:

"16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories:

(i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case.

(ii) Orders which finally decide an issue which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case.

(iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject-matter of the main case.

(iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case

(2006) 5 SCC 399 WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

2025:KER:80370

till its culmination in the final judgment.

(v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

The term "judgment" occurring in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in Section 2(9) CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, "judgment" for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent."

8. From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there remains no

scintilla of doubt that interlocutory orders under certain circumstances

could be appealed against under the Letters Patent. Despite the fact they

are interlocutory in nature they can be put into the compartment of

judgment if it affects the merits of the case between the parties by

determining some rights or liabilities. There can be three categories of WA NO. 2490 OF 2025

2025:KER:80370

judgments, final judgment, preliminary judgment and intermediary

judgment or interlocutory judgment. If the order finally decides the

question and directly affects the decision in the main case or an order

which decides the collateral issue or the question which is not the

subject matter of the main case or which determines the rights and