Administrative Tribunals are competent to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of statutory rules and regulations, excluding their own parent statute. Consequently, such Tribunals must function as courts of first instance, and litigants cannot bypass them by approaching the High Court directly for such challenges.

JUDGMENT :

Anil K. Narendran, J.

1.The petitioners are the applicants in O.A.(EKM)No.613 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, (Additional Bench, Ernakulam), an original application filed under Section 19 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Declare that the non-feasance on the part of the respondents to consider the qualification of Postgraduate Diploma in Manasik Swasthya Vigyan (Ayurveda) (Diploma in Psychiatry) for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Manasik) as notified in Annexure A1 is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to law and unconstitutional;

(ii) Declare that the non-inclusion of qualification of the Postgraduate Diploma in Manasik Swasthya Vigyan (Ayurveda) in Annexure A7 special rules for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Manasik) is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and hence, unconstitutional;

(iii) Call for the records leading to the issue of Anenxure A1 and quash the same to extent it does not include the qualification of Postgraduate Diploma in Manasik Swasthya Vigyan and quash the same to that extent;

(iv) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A7 recruitment rules and quash the same to the extent it does not include the qualification of Postgraduate Diploma in Manasik Swasthya Vigyan (Ayurveda) as an alternate qualification in place of MD/MS for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Manasik);

(v) Direct the respondents to consider the applicants for appointment to the post of Medical Officers (Netra) against the vacancies as notified in Annexure A1 with all consequential benefits arising therefrom.”

2. In O.A.(EKM)No.613 of 2025, the 4^th respondent Kerala Public Service Commission filed Ext.P3 reply statement dated 07.07.2025.

3. On 28.07.2025, when O.A.(EKM)No.613 of 2025 came up for consideration along with a connected matter, i.e., O.A.(EKM)No.595 of 2025, the Tribunal dismissed both the original applications. Paragraphs 5 to 9 and also the last paragraph of Ext.P1 order dated 28.07.2025 of the Tribunal in the aforesaid original applications read thus;

“5. Question as to what should be the qualifications to be prescribed while framing the Special Rules, which is in exercise of subordinate legislative powers of the State Government, is a subject matter fully coming within policy decision of the State Government and it is a matter coming within purview of the legislative wisdom of the State Government. Merely because the applicants are aspirants to any particular post in civil service of the State Government, they cannot in any manner dictate that the qualifications possessed by them shall also be included as alternative qualifications, which can be accepted as sufficient for appointment to the posts in question. Merely because the applicants are aspirants to the post, they do not have locus standi to challenge any decision of the Government, which was taken as a policy by the Government, in exercise of its wisdom. Of course, constitutional validity or unreasonableness or arbitrariness of such subordinate legislation can be challenged by the applicants, probably in their capacity as a representative of the citizenry. Even assuming such a right is vested on the applicants, they can do it in their capacity as 'pro bono publico'. In such case the forum for agitating such cause is not this Tribunal.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that, this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain challenge against validity of the