[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Kerala Public Service Commission vs Azhar.P on 19 February, 2026

WA NO. 144 OF 2026




                                                1
                                                                                2026:KER:14665


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI

                                                &

                         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN

                  THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 30TH MAGHA, 1947

                                        WA NO. 144 OF 2026

           AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 IN WP(C) NO.43795 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/S:

                 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THULASI HILLS, PATTOM. P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004

                 BY ADV SHRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN

RESPONDENT/S:

       1         AZHAR.P, AGED 30 YEARS
                 S/O.MUHAMMED SHA, PARAMBENGAL, VALAMANGALAM, PULPATTA POST,
                 MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 676123

       2         KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATTAM PALACE P.O,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004

                 BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C. DAVIS, SMT.E.U. DHANYA
                 SMT.N.S. SHAMILA, SMT.CHINJU P. JOYIES
                 SHRI.VINAYAK MANOHARAN P.


       THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 23.01.2026, THE COURT ON 19.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WA NO. 144 OF 2026




                                      2
                                                              2026:KER:14665



                                  JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard C.M. Appln. No. 1 of 2026 for condonation of delay. The

appeal has been filed with a delay of 29 days. Having perused the reasons

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation

of delay, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out.

Accordingly, the delay is condoned, and the appeal is taken up for final

hearing.

2. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala

High Court Act, 1958, challenges the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in

W.P.(C) No. 43795 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the

appellant to provisionally include the name of the first respondent in

the rank list pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, subject to further orders in

the writ petition.

2.1 The appellant herein is the second respondent in the writ

petition, whereas the first respondent herein is the petitioner in the writ WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

petition, and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the

writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the first

respondent herein had filed the writ petition seeking the following

reliefs:

"i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to include the petitioner in the ranked list pursuant to Ext.P1 and thereby advice accordingly as per his rank;

ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner pursuant to the advice to be issued by the 2nd respondent from the ranked list pursuant to Exhibit P1.

iii) to issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order quashing Ext.P8 to the extent it which demand equivalency certificate as the same is unjust, illegal and arbitrary;

iv) to grant such other appropriate Writ or further relief as deemed fit and proper by this Honorable Court on the facts and circumstances of the case.

v) To dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents;"

WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

learned Single Judge passed the impugned interim order directing the

appellant to provisionally include the name of the first respondent in

the rank list pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, subject to further orders in

the writ petition, which travels beyond the scope of the writ petition, as

is evident from the prayer clause extracted hereinabove.

4. The main prayer in the writ petition is to include the first

respondent in the rank list pursuant to Ext.P1. In the writ petition, the

first respondent has only challenged Ext.P8, which is a message

requiring him to upload and verify the M.Com. equivalency certificate

for the post of Accounts Officer-Part I (General) (Cat. No. 518/2022) in

KCMMF Ltd. on or before 20.11.2025. The Gazette dated 15.12.2022

(Ext.P1) relates to Category No. 518/2022. The said Gazette prescribes

certain conditions, namely, the method of appointment, age limit,

qualifications, and the requirement to produce an equivalency

certificate as and when called upon to do so. The first respondent has WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

not challenged Ext.P1 Gazette dated 15.12.2022. Therefore, the said

condition cannot be waived at the interim stage.

4.1 The learned Single Judge could not have issued such a

direction in the absence of a challenge to the Ext.P1 Gazette notification.

Moreover, the nature of the interim order amounts to granting the

principal relief sought in the writ petition. Hence, interference by this

Court has become necessary.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent

opposed the prayer and submitted that the writ appeal is barred under

Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, insofar as it is directed

against an interim order. It is further contended that the order of the

learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference and that the writ

appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

7. Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed against an WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

interim order which appears to be of final nature and akin to prayer

clause no.1 in the writ petition. Moreover, gazette notification Ext.P1 is

not under challenge. Therefore, unless the matter is adjudicated finally,

the direction to include the name in the rank list could not have been

issued.

8. 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 Act, 1958, 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:

(2006) 5 SCC 399 WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

(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 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."

8.1 From the aforesaid enunciation of law, there remains no WA NO. 144 OF 2026

2026:KER:14665

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

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