Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MR. MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
DR. KAVITHA CHANDRAN C.I. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 25 OF 2026

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

Upper age limits in recruitment can conflict with national regulations, emphasizing the need for consideration of qualifications without arbitrary restrictions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Challenge to upper age limit of 41 years for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) as prescribed in Kerala Public Service Commission notification - Petitioner possesses the qualifications but is aggrieved by the age restriction that systematically eliminates experienced candidates - The Court considers statutory provisions and previous judgments addressing age limits in educational appointments. (Paras 2 to 4)

(B) UGC and PCI Regulations - The Court examines UGC Regulations, which do not prescribe an upper age limit, asserting their applicability over State provisions where conflicting, reinforced by previous case law. (Paras 6 to 18) Facts of the Case: The applicant, aspiring for an Assistant Professor position, challenges an age limit that she claims contravenes applicable regulations and argues that decisions are needed to address the circumstances impacting experienced candidates.

Findings of Court:
The High Court finds no grounds for immediate relief, emphasizing a pending merits review by the Tribunal while upholding the decision not to intervene prematurely.

Issues: The legality of the prescribed age limit and its alignment with national standards set by regulatory bodies.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reinforced the principle that challenges to administrative decisions regarding age limits in recruitment should be guided by statutory regulations while emphasizing the necessity of thorough examination by tribunals.

Result: Original petition disposed of with directions.

Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!)

Table of Content
1. challenge to age restriction for recruitment post. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. petitioner's qualifications discussed. (Para 5 , 6)
3. arguments presented regarding regulatory authority. (Para 7 , 8)
4. jurisdictional limits under article 227 addressed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. supervisory jurisdiction principles outlined. (Para 12 , 14)
6. conclusion on interim relief and future proceedings. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The applicant in O.A.No.55 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, (‘the Tribunal’ for short) has filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , being dissatisfied with the declining of the interim order sought by the petitioner, as per Ext.P2 order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the Tribunal.

2. The petitioner approached the Tribunal with O.A.No.55 of 2026 filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following reliefs:

“1. To call for records connecting to Annexure A1 and to set aside the age restriction clause in Annexure A1 insofar as it prescribes an upper age limit for Assistant Professor (Pharmacy).

2. Declare that the prescription of an upper age limit of 41 years in Annexure A1 notification (Category No.691/2025) for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy) is illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable.

3. Direct the 3^rd Respondent to permit the Applicant to apply for and be considered for selection to the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy), ignoring the impugned upper age limit.

4. Direct the 3rd Respondent to re-notify or suitably modify Annexure A1 in conformity with the UGC Regulations and PCI norms.”

3. By Annexure A1 notification dated 31.12.2025, the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC for short) invited applications for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy). The upper age limit prescribed for the post in Annexure A1 notification is 41 years. According to the petitioner, she possesses M.Pharm (basic academic qualification for the post of Assistant Professor) and also PhD in Pharmaceutical Science and satisfies all the eligible criteria for the post of Assistant Professor (Pharmacy), notified as per Annexure A1 notification, except the age criteria. The petitioner is now working as a Pharmacist Grade-I in the District Tuberculosis Centre and is very experienced in the discipline. According to the petitioner, the fixation of a low upper age limit has the effect of systematically eliminating experienced hands, while disproportionately favouring younger and less experienced candidates. Contending that the age restriction prescribed in Annexure A1 notification is contrary to the UGC Regulations, 2018, and the PCI Regulations, 2014, both of which consciously do not prescribe any upper age limit for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, the petitioner filed the original application. In the original application, the petitioner has sought for an interim relief to stay the operation of Annexure A1 notification till the disposal of the original application or in the alternate permit the petitioner to submit her application and to participate in the selection process provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the original application. On 16.01.2026, when the original application came up for consideration, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 order, which reads thus:

“Applicant is a Post Graduate in Pharmacy with PhD in Pharmaceutical Science. She is aggrieved by the rejection of her application based on the upper age limit prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Pharmacy, in Annexure-A1 notification. Applicant submits that neither the UGC, nor the Pharmacy Council of India prescribes any upper age limit for induction as Assistant Professor. The applicant further points out that vide Annexure-A3, judgment, the Hon'ble High Court has struck down the stipulation of an upper age limit for appointme

Click Here to Read the rest of this document