Back
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
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application challenging age limit for assistant professor. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding age limit legality and relevance. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. jurisdiction of high court under article 227. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. supremacy of state regulations over ugc provisions. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. order for timely response and hearing in tribunal. (Para 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 p
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
