Appointment to Child Welfare Committees under the Juvenile Justice Act is limited to the remaining term of the Committee, not a full term.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J Heard on admission.

2. The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 challenges the judgment dated 06.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 30033 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, by Ext.P2 notification dated 26.11.2021, the Women and Child Development Department invited applications for the posts of Chairperson and Members of the Child Welfare Committees in fourteen districts of the State of Kerala. The appellant applied for the post of Member and, pursuant to the interview, was placed at Rank No. 9 for the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam. Thereafter, the Chairperson and four Members were appointed, and the appellant was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the waiting list of selected candidates. The appointment of Sri Alan M. Alexander as a Member of the Child Welfare Committee was challenged by the appellant on the ground that he did not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015 (for short, “the Act”). The writ petition was initially dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred an appeal, which was vide allowed Ext.P3 judgment, holding that the appointment of Sri Alan M. Alexander was illegal and declaring the appellant as the next eligible candidate in the waiting list to be appointed in his place.

3.1 Pursuant to the said judgment, Sri Alan M. Alexander was vide removed from the Committee Ext.P4 order, and the appellant was appointed to the said vacancy. Thereafter, the appellant submitted Ext.P5 representation requesting that he be appointed for a full term of three years, instead of being appointed only for the remainder of the existing Committee’s tenure. The Government rejected the said request vide Ext.P6 order. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the writ petition.

3.2 The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, in view of Rule 9(4) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Constitution of Child Welfare Committees and Juvenile Justice Boards (Kerala) Rules , 2017 (for short, ‘the Rules’), an appointment made to a vacancy in the Committee cannot be for a period exceeding three years, and therefore, such appointment can only be for the remainder of the term of the existing Committee. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present writ appeal has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the writ petition. According to the appellant, the interpretation of Rule 9(1) of the Rules by the first respondent, as well as by the learned Single Judge, is erroneous and unsustainable. It is argued that there is nothing in the Rules that prevents or prohibits the appointment of a candidate, who is filling an existing vacancy, from being granted a full term of three years. It was further submitted that the stipulation contained in Rule 9(4)

fortifies the above contention and, therefore, the appointment cannot be restricted to the remaining tenure of the existing Committee. Accordingly, it is contended that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.

Per contra

5. , the learned Government Pleader opposed the prayer and submitted that the term of the Child Welfare Committee, Kollam, expired on 15.06.2025 and was extended up to 16.09.2025 by Exts. R1(d) and R1(e) Government Orders. Thereafter, a fresh selection was conducted, and a new Committee was constituted as per Ext. R1(g) order dated 06.11.2025. Only due to the interim order of this Court dated 26.09.2025, the appellant continued as a Member of the Child Welfare C