[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nitheesh Krishnan M.C vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:28
1
OP(KAT)No.488 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 488 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2025 IN OA (EKM) NO.1757 OF
2022 AND ORDER DATED 2.12.2025 IN RA (EKM) NO.30 OF 2025 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ADDITIONAL BENCH, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/REVIEW APPLICANT NOS.4 AND 6/APPLICANT NOS.4 AND 6:
1 NITHEESH KRISHNAN M.C,AGED 33 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN M.K, MANAKKATTUMPADY HOUSE, PAZHUVIL P.O,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680564
2 MARY INET ARUJA,AGED 45 YEARS, SPOUSE OF LAJAN MIRANDA
5/1619, NEAR BANK QUARTERS, NAZARETH, KOCHI, PIN -
682002
BY ADVS.
SMT.A.ARUNA
SMT.P.V.UTTARA
SMT.JISHA SHAJI
SMT.OLIVIA LEELA JACOB
SHRI.M.R.HARIRAJ (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND APPLICANTS NOS.1,2,3 AND 5 /REVIEW
APPLICANTS NO.1,2,3 AND 5:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH
SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,
2026:KER:28
2
OP(KAT)No.488 of 2025
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,CIVIL STATION, UPHILL
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
4 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,REPRESENTED BY
SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
5 SECRETARY,KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
6 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, CIVIL
STATION, NEW BLOCK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
7 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, KSDC
FOR SC/ST LTD. BUILDING, II FLOOR, TOWN HALL ROAD,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680020
8 THE DISTRICT OFFICER,K.P.S.C. DISTRICT OFFICE, 3RD
FLOOR, EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, ERNAKULAM SOUTH RAILWAY
STATION, KARSHAKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682016
9 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,T THOMAS COLLEGE ROAD,
KEERANKULANGARA, THRISSUR,, PIN - 680001
10 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,PARK AVENUE, GENERAL HOSPITAL
COMPOUND, ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682011
11 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, SECRETARIAT.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
12 CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
13 JACKSON DAVID,AGED 31 YEARS,ALATHOORPADI, BAPPUTTY
QUARTERS, ERNAD PO. MELMURI, MALAPURAM, PIN - 676517
14 VINEETHA C.M,AGED 37 YEARS, SPOUSE OF AJEESH S,
MUKALEL (H). POROOR PO, PRASANTHAGIRI, WAYANAD, PIN -
670644
15 DEEPA P, D/O.DAMODARAN,AGED 40 YEARS
PATHMATHEERTHAM, KADALUNDI, PRABHODHINI, MANNAL PO,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673328
2026:KER:28
3
OP(KAT)No.488 of 2025
16 JIBIN V.V,AGED 27 YEARS,VAISYAPPATT (H), S/O.V.S
VENUGOPALAN, MADAKKATHARA PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680651
17 CHITHIRA K,AGED 37 YEARS, SPOUSE OF SHYAMKUMAR A,
SRINILAYAM (H), BANGALAN PO, NILESHWARAM, KASARGODE,
PIN - 671314
18 LIJESH C.K,AGED 35 YEARS,S/O.CHANDHU
CHATHAMKUNNEL (H), THAROPPOYIL PO, THIRUVALLUVAR.
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673541
19 SAJEENA M.S.,AGED 37 YEARS,
D/O.MUKUNDAN,KOLLARUKUNNUMEL (H), MANGAD PO,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673574
20 BINEETHACHANDRAN A.K,AGED 44 YEARS,D/O.CHANDRAN K
AMBALAPARAMBATH KAUSTHUBHAM (H), PUTHUR PO,
THIRUVALLUVAR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104
21 SREEJITH T.V.,AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.CHATHU,THARAVATTATH
(H), POOLAKKOOL PO, KAKKATTIL, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673507
22 ARATHI S,AGED 27 YEARS,D/O.SOORYAVEERAN,SOORYALAYAM,
DHAVALAKHI, MAYYANAD PO KOLLAM, PIN - 691303
23 PRINCYMOL TC,AGED 39 YEARS, C/O.JOSHY P.C, PAYIPATTU
(H) VADATHALA JETTY PO, NEAR THANKEKATTU TEMPLE,
AROOKUTTY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688535
24 RAVITHA M,AGED 26 YEARS,
D/O MURUKAN, PARUTHIKKATTUMADA (H), VANDITHAVALAM PO,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678534
25 ANOOP B S,AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.BABURAJAN V
ANUBHAVAN MELEKONAM, KUTHIRAKALAM PO. VELLANAD,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695543
26 DILNA NV, AGED 34 YEARS,D/O.DHARMARAJAN N.V,ULLATTIL
(H) NELLIKODE PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
27 PRAYAL P,AGED 34 YEARS,S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PALAYULLATHIL
(H) IRINGATH PO, PAYYOLI VIA. KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673523
28 VIDHYA KV,AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.VASAVAN
KALATHIPARAMBIL (H), CMC-21, CHERTHALA PO. ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 688524
2026:KER:28
4
OP(KAT)No.488 of 2025
29 PRASAD M, S/O.MADHAVAN K, KARIPPAYI (H), KARIMKULAM,
ELANACHERRY, PALAKAD, PIN - 678508
30 ANUJAMOL T.A,AGED 38 YEARS,D/O.UDAYAPPAN
MADATHILPARAMB, PUNNAPRA PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688004
31 SUNI B, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.BABY N
KIDARAKUZHI PUTHENVEEDU, THIRUPURAM PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695133
32 JILUMON W, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.WILLIAMS
KANIYAMPARAMBIL (H) KUTHIYATHAL PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688533
33 KRISHNARAJ P,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRAN P.
PUZHAKKAL HOUSE, KARUVALA, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
34 DHANYA K,AGED 34 YEARS, W/O AVINAS K N. KRIPA HOUSE,
ARIYALLOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676312
35 LIJI T.P,AGED 38 YEARS, D/O JANANRDHANAN T.P.
VARIYATHKUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ELAYUR, IRUVETTY P. O.
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 673639
36 JOB JOSEPH E
AGED 30 YEARS, S/O E.A. JOSEPH. ELENJIKKAL HOUSE, KARA
P.O., KODUNGALLOOR. THRISSUR, PIN - 680671
SRI.B UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR GP
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
SMT.ELIZABETH GEORGE
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
18.12.2025, THE COURT ON 6.1.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:28
5
OP(KAT)No.488 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicants No.4 and 6 in O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 on
the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench at
Ernakulam (the 'Tribunal' in short), filed this original petition,
invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P9 order dated
21.10.2025 in that original application and also Ext.P11 order
dated 02.12.2025 in R.A.(EKM) No.30 of 2025, passed by the
Tribunal.
2. The petitioners, along with respondents 33 to 36, filed
O.A.(EKM) No.1757 of 2022 before the Tribunal, under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following
reliefs:
"i. Set aside Annexure A4 as unjust, illegal and arbitrary.
ii.Declare that educational qualification of Field Worker
stipulated in the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade
Service, 1966, i.e. "Should have passed standard VII and
should not have acquired Graduation" would not apply to
the selection process pursuant to Annexure A1.
iii. To set aside the Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade
Service, 1966 and Annexure A5 to the extent to which it
imposed the qualification "Should have passed standard VII
2026:KER:28
and should not have acquired Graduation" with respect to
field worker in Department of Health Service.
iv. Declare that the applicants are eligible to be included in
the shortlist as well as ranked lists pursuant to Annexure
A1.
v. Direct the respondents 4 to 8 to continue the selection
process as per the qualification stipulated in Annexure A1
and to include the applicants in the shortlist and ranked list
to be published on the basis of their merit.
vi. Direct the respondents 4 to 8 to issue advice in favour
of the applicants and the respondents 1 to 3 and 9,10 to
appoint the applicants as Field Worker under the 2nd
respondent in Malappuram, Thrissur and Ernakulam
districts respectively".
3. According to the petitioners and their co-applicants,
they are the candidates who applied for the post of Field Worker
in the Health Services Department, pursuant to Annexure A1
notification dated 31.12.2019 issued by the 5th respondent
Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission ('KPSC' for short).
The selection was district-wise. Respondents 33 to 35 applied in
Malappuram district, 1st petitioner and respondent No.36 applied
in Thrissur district, and the 2nd petitioner applied in Ernakulam
district. As per Annexure A1 notification, the qualification for the
post is that the candidate must have studied up to VIIIth standard
2026:KER:28
or it's equivalent. After the completion of preliminary and main
examinations, the KPSC issued Annexure A4 erratum notification
dated 12.10.2022, amending the qualification prescribed in
Annexure A1, by changing the qualification as the candidate
should have passed VIIth standard and should not have acquired
graduation. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid erratum notification,
the petitioners, along with respondents 33 to 36 filed the original
application as mentioned above.
4. In the original application, on behalf of respondents 4 to
8, a reply statement dated 11.04.2023 was filed, opposing the
reliefs sought by the petitioners and the other applicants therein.
To that reply statement, the applicants in the O.A. filed a rejoinder
dated 15.06.2023, producing therewith Annexure A7 document.
On behalf of the 1st respondent also a reply statement dated
19.08.2023 was filed in the original application, producing
therewith Annexure R1(a) and R1(b) documents. Thereafter, the
Tribunal considered the original application along with O.A.(EKM)
Nos.1785 of 2022 and 331 of 2025 filed by some similarly placed
persons and by the impugned Ext.P9 order dated 21.10.2025
dismissed O.A. (EKM)No.1785 of 2022 and 1757 of 2022. The
2026:KER:28
Tribunal disposed of O.A.(EKM)No.331 of 2025, with a direction to
the KPSC to proceed in accordance with the erratum notification
and in accordance with law.
5. The petitioners and respondents 33 to 36 thereafter filed
a review application as R.A.(EKM) No.30 of 2025 before the
Tribunal claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the
record in the order dated 21.10.2025. By Ext.P11 order dated
02.12.2025, the Tribunal dismissed the review application.
6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2025 passed in
O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 and also the order dated 02.12.2025
in R.A.(EKM)No.30 of 2025, the petitioners are now before this
Court with the present original petition.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Standing Counsel for KPSC, the learned Senior
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents
13 to 25.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the post of Field
Worker in the Health Services Department continues to be
governed solely by the G.O.(MS)No.213/73/Health dated
2026:KER:28
27.07.1973 which prescribes pass in Standard VIII as the
qualification and treats the post as a distinct category outside the
Kerala Last Grade Service. The Tribunal ought to have appreciated
that the qualification introduced through Annexure A5 that the
candidate should not have acquired graduation is vague, arbitrary
and unconstitutional, which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Annexure A4 order was issued by the KPSC
in complete violation of Rule 15A of the Rules of Procedure of the
KPSC. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the nature of the
duties, physical fitness requirements, recruitment process and pay
structure of Field Workers are distinct from the Kerala Last Grade
Service. In such circumstances, according to the learned Senior
Counsel, an amendment to Annexure A5 Special Rules will lead
to over-inclusion. The qualification of the petitioners cannot be
considered as overqualification, since they possess the minimum
required qualification. If Annexures A4 and A5 are accepted, a
person who appeared for the graduation examination but has not
passed and possesses only the VIIth standard qualification can
apply for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services
Department, and at the same time, a person passed the
2026:KER:28
graduation will not be able to apply for the post.
9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
KPSC would submit that Annexure A5 Special Rules came into
force with effect from 04.06.2016. Since Annexure A1 notification
was issued not in consonance with the qualification prescribed in
Annexure A5 Special Rules, by way of Annexure A4 erratum
notification, the qualification for the post of Field Worker in the
Health Services Department was modified by the KPSC. This
aspect was fully considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order
and found that the change in the qualification prescribed in
Annexure A4 erratum notification was in consonance with the
qualifications prescribed in Annexure A5 Special Rules and hence
will not come under the mischief of violating Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India. Moreover, the ground of overinclusion
now contended by the petitioners was not taken in the original
application.
10. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that by G.O.(MS)No.21/2011/P&ARD dated 01.07.2011 the
Government have modified the general qualification for the post
of Last Grade Servants in various departments and vide Annexure
2026:KER:28
A5 notification, Special Rules for the Kerala Last Grade Service
were amended retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2011.
Hence, the said qualification is a mandatory requirement for any
KPSC notification issued for the post of Last Grade Servants on or
after 01.07.2011. The Field Worker in the Health Services
Department is a post included in the Special Rules for the Kerala
Last Grade Services in Rule 1 category 7. The Government holds
the constitutional right to fix the qualifications for the post in the
civil service suitably. Therefore, there is no ground to challenge
Annexures A4 and A5. The Tribunal rightly appreciated these
aspects, and hence no interference is needed to the said order.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents 13 to 25 fully
supported the impugned orders of the Tribunal and argued that
the classification based on the qualification prescribed for the post
of Field Worker in the Health Services Department is a reasonable
classification coming under Article 16(3) of the Constitution of
India. A Government order cannot have overriding effect over the
rules, and hence the contentions of the petitioners have no merit.
12. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
2026:KER:28
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.
13. 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.
14. 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
2026:KER:28
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.
15. 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.
16. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
2026:KER:28
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.
17. 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 a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
2026:KER:28
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 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
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
18. From the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on
21.10.2025 in O.A.(EKM)No.1757 of 2022 and connected original
applications, and also from the order dated 02.12.2025 in
R.A.(EKM)No. 30 of 2025 in that original application by the
Tribunal, it is evident that the contentions now raised by the
parties in this original petition were appreciated by the Tribunal.
Though the petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court
in State of Andhra Pradesh v. A.P State Wakf Board [(2022)
SCC Online SC 159] and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan
High Court [(2025) 2 SCC 1] in support of the contention that
the KPSC cannot deviate from the qualification originally notified,
midway of selection, the Tribunal in paragraph 10 and 13 of the
2026:KER:28
impugned Ext.P9 order answered those contentions as under:
"10. In the judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak's case (supra)
the Apex Court was considering the correctness of the
judgment in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. [(2008) 3 SCC
512] regarding the principle of changing the rules of the
game in the midst of selection. Much reliance was placed by
the learned counsel for the applicant to paragraph 14 and
15 of the said judgment, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has
discussed the doctrine prescribing change of rules midway.
It is stated that the rule is against arbitrariness enshrined in
Article 14 of the Constitution. Articles 14 and 16 require that
State is bound to act fairly and in a transparent manner and
public authorities shall be accountable for their
representations. As observed therein, the candidates
participating in a recruitment process have legitimate
expectation that the process of selection would be fair and
non-arbitrary. The doctrine of legitimate expectation lays
emphasis on predictability and consistency in decision
making and evolved to include the principles of good
administration and good administration require that such
decisions must withstand the test of consistency,
transparency and predictability in order to avoid being
regarded as arbitrary. But the legitimate expectation of the
applicants in this case happened to be on the basis of an
erroneous notification contrary to the rules governing the
post. As long as the Special Rules provide a different
qualification than the one notified and applicants are
disqualified even to submit application, they cannot seek
2026:KER:28
any right on the basis of such expectations. The dictum laid
down in the said judgment would not apply to the facts of
the case.
xxx xxx xxx
13. The contention of the applicant relying on R.15A of KPSC
Rules of Procedure that PSC does not have the authority to
issue erratum notification in order to change the
qualification for selection to the post is not sustainable, as
the erratum notification was issued only to be in tune with
the Special Rules. In the judgment in A.P.State Wakf Board's
case (supra) relied on, the question was relating to an
erratum notification in the Official Gazette of the State of
Andhra Pradesh on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Wakf Board
relating to service Inam lands. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
found that the erratum notification was nothing but a fresh
notification altogether whereas erratum was only a
correction of mistake and only arithmetical and clerical
mistakes could be corrected and the scope of the notification
could not be enlarged by virtue of an erratum notification.
There the extent of land notified as Wakf property was
corrected to include a large number of lands under the guise
of an erratum notification. It was held that it was not a case
of clerical or arithmetical mistake, but it was inclusion of
large area, which could not have been done without
conducting a proper enquiry in accordance with the
provisions of the Act or on the basis of survey reports. The
present is a case where PSC happened to issue notification
notifying the qualifications for the post as was available
2026:KER:28
under the pre-amended Special Rules. The erratum
notification is issued only to make the notification in tune
with the qualification as prescribed in the Special Rules as it
existed at the time when the notification was issued.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the applicants were entitled
to be considered for the selection in accordance with the
qualifications as notified in Annexure A1. The PSC cannot
have any right to conduct a selection contrary to the said
rules. Similarly, the applicants also do not have a right to be
considered for employment except in accordance with the
provisions of the Special Rules. There are specific provisions
in the Special Rules to the effect that the candidates shall
not be graduates. Therefore, the applicants who are
graduates cannot have any right to participate in the
selection process merely on the ground that they were
included in the short list or that the qualification was
erroneously notified will not help the applicants in
compelling the PSC to go on with the selection process only
in accordance with Annexure A1 notification".
19. As far as the contention of the petitioners regarding the
qualification prescribed in Annexure A5 Special Rules as arbitrary
and unconstitutional, the Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
order held as under:
"15 . It is settled legal position, as held in Pankajakshi V
George Mathew [1987(2) KLT 723], after discussing a
series of judgments on the point including Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
2026:KER:28
[(1985) 1 SCC 641], that a rule made under a statute can
be challenged only on the grounds that it is ultra vires of the
Act or it is opposed to the fundamental rights or it is opposed
to other plenary laws. It was also held that in order to
ascertain whether a rule is ultra vires of the Act, the Court
can go into the questions: (a) whether it contravenes
expressly or impliedly any of the provisions of the statute;
(b) whether it achieves the intent and object of the Act; and
(c) whether it is unreasonable to be manifestly arbitrary,
unjust or partial implying thereby want of authority to make
such rules. In Dental Council of India v. Biyani Shikshan
Samiti, [(2022) 6 SCC 65], the Apex Court, reiterated
that subordinate legislation can be successfully questioned
on any of the grounds on which plenary legislation is
questioned. It can be questioned on the ground that it does
not conform to the statute under which it is made or that it
is contrary to some other statute. For challenging the
subordinate legislation on the ground of arbitrariness, it can
only be done when it is found that it is not in conformity
with the statute or that it offends Article 14 of the
Constitution. It has further been held that it cannot be done
merely on the ground that it is not reasonable or that it has
not taken into account relevant circumstances which the
Court considers relevant. The applicants have not urged any
such grounds. The grounds urged are not sufficient to come
to conclusion that the qualification prescribed for the post in
the Special Rules warrants any interference.
16. In Unni K.E v. State of Kerala, [2024 (7) KHC 716],
2026:KER:28
the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held that the anomalies, if
any in the Special Rules are to be looked into by the
Government and not by this Tribunal".
20. In Ext.P11 order dated 02.12.2025 in the review
application No.30 of 2025 the Tribunal has further considered the
contention of the petitioners regarding Annexures RA2 answer
given by the Hon'ble Minister for Health on the floor of the
legislative assembly regarding the qualifications of the Field
Worker as studied up to VIIIth standard and RA3 letter of the
Director of Health Services addressed to the Principal Secretary
of the Health Department recommending modification of the
qualification and requesting that VIIIth standard can be retained
as educational qualification for the Field Workers, and the Tribunal
found that it is the Special Rules that has to be considered and
not Annexures RA2 and RA3 for issuing the notification
prescribing the qualifications.
21. It is true that in Annexure A1 notification the
qualification for the post of Field Worker in the Health Services
Department is prescribed as having studied up to VIIIth standard
or its equivalent, apart from the remaining qualifications
prescribed therein. However, from Annexure A5 Special Rules and
2026:KER:28
from the reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in the original
application, it is evident that before Annexure A1 notification itself,
the qualification for the post of last grade servant in various
departments with effect from 01.07.2011, vide Annexure A5
notification, was prescribed as having passed VIIth standard and
should not have acquired graduation. It was under that
circumstances, Annexure A4 erratum notification was issued by
the KPSC. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that a co-equal
Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.10.2025 in
W.A.No.726 of 2025 - Secretary, Kerala Public Service
Commission v. Ajmal [2025:KER:75555], in a writ appeal filed
by the KPSC challenging the judgment of the learned Single
Judge contending that the learned Single Judge has failed to
appreciate the substantial change in the qualification notified and
the qualification which was amended in terms of the amendment
to the recruitment rules to the post of Junior Manager (Accounts)
in the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation held thus:
"7. We have heard both sides and have considered the
contentions put forth. We note that the Honourable
Supreme Court has in Raj Kumar [(2023) 3 SCC 773] held
that the statement in Y.V.Rangaiah [(1983) 3 SCC 284] that
2026:KER:28
"the vacancies which occurred prior to the amended Rules
would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended
Rules" does not reflect the correct proposition of law
governing services under the Union and the States under
Part XIV of the Constitution. After a detailed survey of the
cases that have distinguished in Y.V.Rangaiah (supra), the
Honourable Supreme Court in Raj Kumar (supra) has pithily
summed up the conclusions derived as follows:
"1. There is no rule of universal application that
vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the
law which existed on the date when they arose.
Rangaiah's case must be understood in the context of
the rules involved therein.
2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate
has a right to be considered in the light of the existed
rules, which implies the rules in force. As on the date
consideration takes place, the right to be considered for
promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the
eligible candidates.
3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy
decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the
amendment of the rules. The employees do not acquire
any vested right to being considered for promotion in
accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy
decision taken by the Government. There is no
obligation for the Government to make appointments
as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the
cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The
2026:KER:28
only requirement is that the policy decisions of the
Government must be fair and reasonable and must be
justified on the touchstone of Article 14.
4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely
because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for
the appointing authority to fill up the posts
immediately."
"82.5 When there is no statutory duty cast upon the
State to consider appointments to vacancies that
existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be
directed to consider the cases."
It is in the backdrop of the above dictum laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that the averments in the case at
hand have to be examined.
8. Admittedly, the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation
Common Service Recruitment Rules, 2021, were formulated
by consolidating the existing rules and orders of the
Corporation, and the same now uniformly govern the service
conditions of all its employees. Pursuant to the G.O.(P)
No.3/2021/F&CSD dated 11.02.2021, the Recruitment
Rules for the post of Junior Manager (Accounts) had been
amended, and the prescribed qualifications too stand
amended thereby. Subsequently, on 03.01.2022, two fresh
vacancies for the said post had been reported, i.e., the
reporting of the said vacancies occurred after the
amendment to the Recruitment Rules and it pertained to
vacancies that arose following the introduction of the Rules
of 2021. It is also undisputed that the method of
2026:KER:28
appointment and requisite qualifications are governed by
2021 Rules, under which the qualifications prescribed in the
Special Rules for the post stand amended. The practical
impact of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Raj Kumar (supra) discussed above, is that once
the qualifications have been revised, vacancies arising after
the date of such amendment cannot be filled from the
previously published ranked list. Instead, those vacancies
must be filled pursuant to a fresh notification and a selection
process conducted in accordance with the amended Special
Rules.
22. Since the qualification for the post prescribed in
Annexure A1 notification for the post of Field Worker in the Health
Services Department was not in consonance with Annexure A5
Special Rules, it cannot be said that the subsequent erratum
notification by way of Annexure A4 issued by the KPSC to make
that qualification in consonance with Annexure A5 Special Rules
as arbitrary or illegal. So also, while considering the nature and
qualification prescribed for the last grade servants in various
departments, in Annexure A5 Special Rules, it can only be said
that it is a reasonable classification permitted under Article 16(3)
of the Constitution of India, and it is not violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
2026:KER:28
23. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to
hold that the impugned Exts.P9 and P11 orders of the Tribunal
are perverse or illegal, which warrants interference of this Court
by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2026:KER:28
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 488 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO SELECTION TO
THE POST OF FILED WORKER IN HEALTH SERVICE
DEPARTMENT (CATEGORY NO.546/2019) DATED
31.12.2019.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO. 06/2021/DOM DATED
20.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFICATION
NO.07/2021/DOR DATED 24.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE
7TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO.07/2021/DOE DATED 20.09.2021
ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SELF-DECLARATION FORMAT
PUBLISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT
TO CATEGORY NO.546/2019 IN ITS OFFICIAL
WEBSITE.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO:DR
5-2/50023/2018-KPSC DATED 12.10.2022 ISSUED
BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) NO. 12/2016/P&ARD
DATED 04.06.2016 PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE
DATED 04.06.2016.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PL
NO.21/2022/DOT DATED 01.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT OFFICER, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT DATED
30.06.2017 TITLED "DU QUOTA FOR DELHIITES
GITS A BOOST" APPEARED "THE HINDU" ONLINE
NEWS PORTAL
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(MS)
NO.21/2011/P&ARD DATED 01.07.2011 OF
PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (RULES)
DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM
Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA LAST GRADE SERVICE
(AMENDMENT) RULES 2016 G.O(P) NO.
12/2016/P&ARD DATED 04.06.2016
Annexure RA1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED
21.10.2025 IN O.A (EKM) NO. 1757 OF 2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL
2026:KER:28
Annexure RA2 TRUE COPY OF THE ANSWER GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE
MINISTER HOLDING THE PORTFOLIO OF HEALTH TO
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 5606 DATED 24.03.2025
ON THE FLOOR OR NIYAMASABHA
Annexure RA3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. EH
1/24102/2023/H&FWD DATED 01.02.2024
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA FILED
BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO.2102/2022 FILED
FOR JOIN TOGETHER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 953 OF 2024 FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS FOR IMPLEADING
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 534 OF 2025 FILED
BY R13 TO R32 FOR IMPLEADING
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 555 OF 2025 FILED
BY R13 TO R32 FOR VACATING THE INTERIM ORDER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 898 OF 2024 FILED
BY R4 TO R8 TO VACATE THE INTERIM ORDER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 1013 OF 2024
FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR DIRECTION
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY R4
TO R8
Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. R4 TO R8
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 21.10.2025
IN OA(EKM) 1757/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW
APPLICATION (EKM)N0.30/2025
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 02.12.2025
IN REVIEW APPLICATION(EKM) NO. 30/2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
28.11.2022 IN OA(EKM) 1757/2022 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
