The court reaffirmed jurisdictional limits for cases involving employees not categorized as civil post holders, emphasizing the High Court's authority under Article 226 over Administrative Tribunals.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act,1958 assails the judgment dated 20.11.2025 passed in WPC No.42602 of 2025 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. The learned Single Judge held that the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable since the appellant is unable to show that Prathyasa Bhavan has independent legal status and that the appellant will have to approach the appropriate forum under the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act 1985’), if there is any service grievance and dismissed the Writ Petition.

CONTENTION OF APPELLANTS

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was working as Multi-Task Care Provider at Prathyasa Bhavan, Thrissur. She has been terminated vide Ext.P5 order by the first respondent herein. The appellant had challenged the said order in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant was engaged only as a casual/contractual labourer in the post of ‘Multi-Tax Provider’ and was not appointed to any civil post and is not governed by any statutory service rules. Therefore, the jurisdiction would lie before this Court only and not the Administrative Tribunal.

3.1 The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another v Ameerbi and others , (2007) 11 SCC 681 wherein it was held that the appointments made under a scheme, and the recruitment process being carried out through a committee, it would not render the incumbents thereof, the holders of civil post. InAmeerbi ’s case (supra) the applicants were Anganwadi workers working under the social justice department and were appointed by a committee, therefore, they were not civil post holders. The Supreme Court has held that such workers are eligible to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance. The order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the learned Single Judge.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent State opposed the prayer and submitted that the learned Single Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Administrative Tribunal.

4.1 The learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that he had sought instructions in the matter. The respondent No.1, Prathyasa Bhavan is not a Government Department, but, however, the same has been constituted for the purpose of welfare of the people at large which comes under the department of social justice in the State of Kerala. Therefore, the Kerala Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction to hear the matter. The learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellant to avail the remedy before the appropriate Tribunal. The learned counsel further pointed out the provisions of Section 15(c) of the Act, 1985 which is reproduced as follows:

15(c)__ All service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in clause(b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority of Corporation (or society) or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government, at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment.

4.2 The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the salary of the employees of Prathyasa Bhavan is being paid by the State of Kerala. Therefore, no interference is called for. The writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

4.3 Heard Smt.Shabnam Saidalavi, the learned counsel for the ap