Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JJ.
Anuj V.T., S/o. Thulaseedharan Nair G. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (B) Department & Ors. - Respondents
OP(KAT) No. 115 of 2023
Decided On : 04-10-2024
Jurisdiction - Administrative Tribunal - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 19, 28 - The court interpreted the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal concerning recruitment matters, establishing that aspirants can challenge qualification criteria affecting their eligibility, thus affirming the Tribunal's authority to adjudicate such disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, aspiring for the post of Lab Assistant (Dialysis), challenged the experience criteria set by a government order, claiming it was unworkable and illegal, preventing them from applying for the post.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' grievances regarding the qualification criteria, as it pertained to recruitment matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Issues: Whether the Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain the Original Application filed by the petitioners regarding the qualification criteria for the post of Lab Assistant (Dialysis).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that aspirants for a post can challenge qualification criteria before the Administrative Tribunal, as such matters fall within the scope of recruitment and service matters under the Administrative Tribunals Act.
Result: The court set aside the Tribunal's order and declared the Original Application maintainable.
JUDGMENT :
Murali Purushothaman, J.
The Original Petition (KAT) is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2022 in O.A No.1945 of 2022 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram whereby the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application as not maintainable holding that it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Original Application.
2. The petitioners were the applicants in the Original Application. They were aspirants for the post of 'Lab Assistant (Dialysis)' coming under the Medical Education Service of the State.
3. The qualification and method of appointment to the post of Lab Assistant (Dialysis) was fixed as per G.O(Ms) No.249/1982/H&FWD dated 25.10.1982. By Annexure-A1 Government Order dated 06.12.2021, the Government amended the qualification and method of appointment to the said post. The qualification prescribed as per Annexure-A1 is, (i) Diploma in Dialysis Technology/Post Graduate Diploma in Dialysis Technology from a recognised Medical College/ Institution approved by the Government of Kerala/Kerala Paramedical Council or Bachelor Degree in Dialysis Technology from a recognized University. The experience criteria prescribed in Annexure-A1 provides for 'a working experience of not less than two years in the dialysis Department of Medical College for Diploma in Dialysis Technology/Post Graduate Diploma in Dialysis Technology holders'.
4. The petitioners state that they possess the qualification prescribed in Annexure-A1. However, regarding the requirement of work experience from Medical Colleges, they state that there are only 27 sanctioned posts across nine Medical Colleges in Kerala, while more than 1,500 students have completed courses in Dialysis Technology and it is therefore impossible for all these students to get work experience from Medical Colleges, making the requirement unworkable and illegal in light of the legal principle Lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the doing of impossibilities). The petitioners state that they have work experience from other approved institutions, which is equivalent to the work experience from Medical Colleges in all respects. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted Annexure-A3 representation before the Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, the 2nd respondent highlighting the aforementioned grievance. Since no action was taken thereon, the petitioners approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for direction to quash the experience criteria prescribed in Annexure-A1 Government Order and for direction to the 2nd respondent to pass fresh order fixing new experience criteria. A prayer was also sought to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure-A3 representation within a time frame.
5. The Registry of this Court noted a defect asking the petitioners 'to verify whether the matter relates to Kerala Administrative Tribunal'. The learned counsel for the petitioners answered that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. Being not satisfied with the reply, the matter was posted before the Bench and the learned Single Judge by Annexure-A4 order dated 27.09.2022 upheld the defect noted by the Registry and the writ petition was returned to be filed before the appropriate forum. Accordingly, the petitioners filed the aforesaid Original Application before the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
(ii) To pass appropriate order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass service and order on Anexure A3 representation after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicants advice the applicants.”
6. The Tribunal, by Ext. P2 order dated 18.11.2022, dismissed the Original Application. The order of the Tribunal reads as follows:-
Aspirants for public service positions can challenge qualification criteria before Administrative Tribunals, affirming their jurisdiction over recruitment matters.
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring candidates' qualifications are fairly considered in recruitment matters, and affirmed the tribunal's duty to address constitutional challenges to rules....
Administrative Tribunals are competent to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of statutory rules and regulations, excluding their own parent statute. Consequently, such Tribunals must functio....
High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not extend to appellate review; qualifications for civil service maintained under established rules.
High Courts cannot directly entertain service matters; such issues must first be addressed by the appropriate Administrative Tribunal as per the Administrative Tribunals Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties cannot directly approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of service matters covered by the Act of 1985....
The High Court cannot interfere with the Tribunal's findings under Article 227 unless there is clear evidence of patent perversity or gross failure of justice.
The High Court held that litigants must approach Administrative Tribunals first for recruitment-related matters, as exclusive jurisdiction was conferred under the Administrative Tribunals Act, even f....
The absence of a competitive examination in the recruitment process for public employment violates constitutional rights, emphasizing the need for merit-based selection to ensure fairness and transpa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
