Back
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
Anuj V. T. , S/o. Thulaseedharan Nair G. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (B) Department – Respondent
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 pro
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....
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 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....
Judicial superintendence cannot substitute lower court findings unless severe legal errors exist, emphasizing promotion eligibility based on the completion of probation.
Parties cannot by agreement confer jurisdiction on a court that lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter; such stipulations are void and against public policy.
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
