Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Sadhiq M.M. S/o Mohammed M.K. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
W.A. No. 2121 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Jurisdiction of High Courts and Tribunals - The appellant sought a writ of mandamus for review of a suspension order. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition as the appellant had been issued a charge sheet. The court held that matters concerning service in the Revenue Department fall under the jurisdiction of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, not the High Court. (Paras 1, 4, 16)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - The court emphasized that litigants must first approach the appropriate Administrative Tribunal regarding service matters, reaffirming that High Courts cannot directly entertain such cases. (Paras 4, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was suspended following his arrest under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He sought to review the suspension order through the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, reinforcing the jurisdiction of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition concerning service matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the jurisdiction of High Courts is limited in service matters, emphasizing the need to approach the Administrative Tribunal first.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
1. The appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 43038 of 2024, invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order directing the 3rd respondent Suspension and Review Committee (Vigilance Department) to consider Ext.P3 application dated 17.04.2024, which is one filed seeking review of Ext.P2 order of suspension dated 18.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent District Collector, Thrissur, whereby the appellant-writ petitioner, who was working as the Village Officer, Thekkumkara Village, under the Revenue Department of the State, was placed under suspension with effect from 15.01.2024, invoking the provisions under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 since he was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur, on 15.01.2024 at 02.50 p.m. in Vigilance Case No. 01/2024/TSR registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 05.12.2024 dismissed the writ petition. Since the appellant-writ petitioner has already been issued with a charge sheet in the disciplinary proceedings, the learned Single Judge found no ground, at this stage, to entertain the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents on the question of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerning recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of Union or of any State.
4. As already noticed hereinbefore, the only relief sought for in the writ petition is a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 application dated 17.04.2024 made by the appellant, who was working as the Village Officer, Thekkumkara Village, in the Revenue Department of the State. The said application is one filed by the appellant seeking review of Ext.P2 order of suspension dated 18.01.2024 issued by the 4th respondent District Collector. Since the appellant was arrested by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thrissur, on 15.01.2024 at 02.50 p.m., in Vigilance Case No. 01/2024/TSR registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order dated 18.01.2024, with effect from 15.01.2024, invoking the provisions under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules.
5. Article 323A of the Constitution of India deals with the constitution of Administrative Tribunals for the adjudication or trial of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation owned or controlled by the Government. Article 323B deals with the constitution of the Tribunal for other matters, i.e., for the adjudication or trial of any disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2) of the said Article, with respect to which such Legislature has the power to make laws.
6. The Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any Stat
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 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....
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....
Aspirants for public service positions can challenge qualification criteria before Administrative Tribunals, affirming their jurisdiction over recruitment matters.
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 failure to file a delay condonation application renders an original application before the Tribunal non-maintainable, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory provisions.
The High Court must not entertain recruitment disputes when a Tribunal has jurisdiction, emphasizing the principle of alternative remedy in administrative matters per the Administrative Tribunals Act....
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
