Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM), SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT, SHRI.EMMANUAL SANJU
For the Respondents: SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GP, SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC

Case Overview

• Original Petition under Article 227 challenging Tribunal's refusal of interim relief in OA No.55/2026 regarding upper age limit of 41 years for Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) post in KPSC notification (Annexure A1 dated 31.12.2025). (!) (!) (!) (!)

Facts

• Petitioner holds M.Pharm and PhD in Pharmaceutical Science, meets all eligibility except age; currently Pharmacist Grade-I with experience; argues low age limit eliminates experienced candidates and favors less experienced ones. (!) (!)
• OA prayers: Set aside age restriction in A1; declare 41-year limit illegal; permit application ignoring age; re-notify per UGC/PCI norms. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• Tribunal declined interim stay or provisional participation, directed PSC statement; noted PSC follows Govt executive orders, distinguishes pharmacy post (PG at age 22 possible) from medical streams with higher age relaxations. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Petitioner's Arguments

• Upper age limit consciously omitted in UGC Regulations 2018 and PCI Regulations 2014; Govt enhanced limit to 50 years for Higher Education Dept Assistant Professors. (!) (!)

Respondents' Arguments

• Age/qualifications fixed by Govt via executive orders (e.g., G.O.(MS)57/80/Health: 40 for Assistant Professor; 2012 order uniform +1 year up to 50); PSC merely implements; entry-level post justifies limit; UGC leaves upper age to States considering factors. (!) (!) (!) (!)
• A4 GO (50 years) inapplicable as notification under Medical Education Dept. (!)

High Court's Analysis on Jurisdiction

• Article 227 confers supervisory power over tribunals to ensure authority bounds, law principles followed; not appellate; minimal interference to maintain justice machinery; only for patent perversity, gross justice failure, natural justice breach, grave dereliction, or flagrant law abuse. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Findings on Merits/Relief

• Notification per Govt executive orders; whether challenge to orders or notification stipulation for Tribunal on merits with pleadings/replies pending; no perversity in declining interim at preliminary stage. (!) (!)
• No interference with Tribunal order; direct expeditious replies (within 2 weeks), petitioner may seek early OA hearing. (!) (!)

Outcome

• Original petition disposed with directions; no immediate relief, merits to Tribunal. (!) (!)