Kerala High Court
Bindu Ka vs State Of Kerala on 22 July, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
1
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1948
OP(KAT) NO. 190 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 IN OA NO.932 OF 2026 OF THE
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
BINDU KA, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O KK BABU, WORKING AS
JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT , AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND
FARMERS WELFARE, AUDIT SECTION-2, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS' WELFARE,
DIRECTORATE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033
KERALA, RESIDING AT KOLLAMMAVUDI, ADIMALI,
POONJARKANDOM, ADIMALI,, VTC MANNAMKANDAM, IDUKKI, PIN
- 685561
BY ADVS.
SMT.P.V.UTTARA
SHRI.DAVID VARGHESE THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695587
2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
3 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
2
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 682031
4 DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S
WELFARE, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
5 DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE
DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT AND FARMER'S
WELFARE VIKAS BHAVAN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
SRI.SYAMANTHAK. B.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADR
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
17.06.2026, THE COURT ON 22.07.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
3
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A.No.932 of 2026 on the file of the Kerala
Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the ‘Tribunal’ for
short) filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, challenging Ext.P2 interim order dated 12.06.2026 passed
by the Tribunal in that original application.
2. Going by the pleadings in the original application, the
petitioner is a Junior Superintendent at the Directorate of
Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, who suffers from 50%
locomotor disability. She is aggrieved by the denial of her rightful
reservation in promotion to various posts in the 3 rd respondent.
The respondents have blatantly refused to fulfil the statutory
mandate under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016, and not even a single instance of reservation in
promotion has been granted in the Directorate of Agriculture and
Farmers’ Welfare, till date. Therefore, there is a huge backlog of
vacancies to be filled by way of reservation in promotion in all
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
4
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
posts in the Directorate of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, in the
manner prescribed under the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1996
and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Currently, 5
vacancies exist in the post of Accounts Officer. The petitioner is
qualified and entitled to be promoted to the 1 st of the vacancies,
with retrospectivity from the date of the backlog. The 1 st of the
said vacancies, being the first vacancy of Accounts Officer that has
arisen in 2026, is earmarked for Persons with Disability as per the
roster, in any event. The respondents had also refused to grant
reservation in promotion at the time that the petitioner was
previously promoted to the posts of Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and
Junior Superintendent. Had the respondents 3 to 5 complied with
the statutory mandate under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016, at those instances, the petitioner
would have been promoted at a much earlier date. The petitioner
was denied her statutory right in these instances due to no fault
of hers, in violation of repeated directions of the Supreme Court
and this Court, even though she was persistently demanding her
rights, by way of Annexure A7 series representations and by
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
5
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
approaching the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition No.680 of
2017. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be granted notional
promotion with effect from the date of the backlog vacancy, along
with all consequential service and monetary benefits, to the posts
that she was previously promoted without granting reservation,
i.e. in the posts of Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and Junior
Superintendent, in the manner prescribed in Persons with
Disabilities Act 1996 and Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016. The respondents are liable under Section 34 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016, along with Annexures A3, A4
and A4(a) and the judicial precedents to calculate the backlog and
grant the petitioner notional promotion from such date. With these
pleadings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing the
original application under Section 19 of the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs;
“1. Set aside Annexure A5 select list, to the extent the
applicant is not included for consideration by the DPC for
promotion to the post of Accounts Officer;
2. Set aside Annexure A9 and A10 as violative of Annexure
A4(a) judgment;
3. declare that the refusal on the part of the respondents to
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
6
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026implement the reservation in promotion to Differently Abled
employees to is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Sections 34
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, violative
of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and various
Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court of
Kerala;
4. Direct the respondents to implement reservation in
promotion to Differently Abled employees to higher posts,
particularly to the posts of Accounts Officer, Senior Clerk,
Head Clerk and Junior Superintendent;
5. Call for all records relating to the promotion to the post
of Accounts Officer:
6. Declare that the respondents 3-5 are liable to promote
the applicant to the vacancy of Accounts Officer with
retrospective effect from the date of backlog vacancy
earmarked for PWD reservation in terms with the provisions
of Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016, along with all consequential benefits;
7. Direct the respondents 3-5 to promote the applicant to
the post of Accounts Officer, Officer with retrospective effect
from the date of backlog vacancy earmarked for PWD
reservation in terms with the provisions of Section 34 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, along with all
consequential benefits;
8. Call for all records concerning the backlog 3% vacancies
in the post of Accounts Officer, Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and
Junior Superintendent between 07.02.1996 to 18.04.2017
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
7
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026and 4% vacancies from 19.04.2017 earmarked for PWD
reservation;
9. Declare that the respondents 3-5 are liable to fill up the
backlog of 3% vacancies earmarked for promotion to the
post of Accounts Officer, Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and Junior
Superintendent from 07.02.1996 to 18.04.2017 and 4%
from 19.04.2017, forthwith;
10. Direct the respondents 3-5 to fill up the backlog of 3%
vacancies earmarked for promotion to the post of Accounts
Officer, Senior Clerk, Head Clerk and Junior Superintendent
from 07.02.1996 to 18.04.2017 and 4% from 19.04.2017,
forthwith;
11. Declare that the applicant is entitled to be granted
notional promotion in the posts of Senior Clerk, Head Clerk
and Junior Superintendent from the date of the backlog
vacancy, along with consequential monetary and service
benefits;
12. Direct the respondents 3-5 to grant the applicant
notional promotion in the posts of Senior Clerk, Head Clerk
and Junior Superintendent from the date of the backlog
vacancy, along with consequential monetary and service
benefits;
13. Direct the respondents 3 and 5 to consider and pass
orders in Annexure A11 representation.
14. Declare that the applicant is entitled to temporary
promotion in the post of Accounts Officer, until orders are
passed regularly promoting her as Accounts Officer;
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
8
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
15. Direct the respondents 3-5 to issue the applicant with
temporary promotion in the post of Accounts Officer, until
orders are passed regularly promoting her as Accounts
Officer”.
3. In the original application, the petitioner-applicant
sought an interim order to direct the respondents to keep vacant
the currently existing 5 vacancies in the post of Accounts Officer
and direct the respondents to issue temporary promotion to the
petitioner-applicant in tune with Rule 31 of Kerala State and
Subordinate Service Rules, in the post of Accounts Officer,
provisionally and subject to the result of the original application.
4. On 12.06.2026, when the original application came up
for consideration, the Tribunal passed the impugned Ext.P2 order,
whereby the Tribunal declined the interim relief. Paragraphs 5 and
6 and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“5. The applicant was not included in Annexure A5 Select
List for promotion to the post of Accounts Officer. Her
request for granting promotion as provided under the RPwD
Act and the above Government Orders in the light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court was declined vide
Annexure A9 communication from the 3rd respondent
received by her through Annexure A10 communication from
the 5th respondent. The prayer in the Original Application is
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
9
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026to set aside the Annexure A5 Select List and also Annexure
A9 and A10 communications. Evidently, promotion to the
cadre of Accounts Officer requires consideration of the merit
and suitability of a member of service in the feeder category
as assessed by the Departmental Promotion Committee
(DPC). The Annexure A5 Select List was prepared by the DPC
(Higher) in its meeting on 26.03.2026 and notified by the
Government on 24.04.2026. The applicant has not raised
any statutory objection against this Select List. She also has
not impleaded any of the persons included in the Select List
whose interest is likely to be affected, if any interim order is
granted in this Original Application.
6. Under the above circumstances, this Tribunal finds that
no interim order can be issued which will have any negative
impact on the promotion prospects of the persons included
in the Annexure A5 Select List till they are given an
opportunity to present their side. Accordingly, the prayer for
interim order is declined.
Post after one month for the reply statement of the
respondents.”
5. Being aggrieved by the non-granting of interim relief
prayed in the original application, the petitioner is now before this
Court with this original petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
10
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not implead the
persons included in Annexure A5 select list in the original
application for the reason that the petitioner is seeking her
incorporation in the select list and she is not challenging the
inclusion of the persons mentioned therein in the select list. The
learned counsel further submitted that the addresses of the
persons included in Annexure A5 select list could not be obtained
by the petitioner at the time of filing the original application, and
hence also, they were not made parties in the original application.
It is the argument of the learned counsel that only for the reason
of non-impleadment of the persons in Annexure A5 select list in
the original application, the interim relief cannot be refused by the
Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid argument, the learned
counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in A.
Janardhana v. Union of India [(1983) 3 SCC 601]. The
learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that if an
interim order is not granted directing the respondents at least to
keep vacant one vacancy out of the currently existing five
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
11
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
vacancies in the cadre of Accounts Officer, the petitioner will be
put to irreparable hardships.
8. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
submitted that Annexure A5 select list was published on
24.04.2026. However, while filing the original application, the
petitioner did not implead the affected parties, that is, the persons
included in Annexure A5 select list who will be affected if an order
is passed in favour of the petitioner, in the original application.
Moreover, the petitioner did not raise any statutory objection
against Annexure A5 select list. Therefore, there is no ground to
interfere with the impugned Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal.
9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
10. In Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd
[(2001) 8 SCC 97], the Apex Court held thus;
“The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
12
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026by a High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this Article involves a
duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals
within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do
duty expected or required by them in a legal manner. The
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to
correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within
the limits of the jurisdiction of the courts subordinate or
tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the
orders of the courts or tribunal is restricted to cases of
serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court
does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It
is also well settled that the High Court while acting under
this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court
or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the
subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent
on the fact of the record. The High Court can set aside or
ignore the findings of facts of inferior court or tribunal, if
there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so
perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or Tribunal has come to.”
11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
13
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
12. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well-established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well-recognised
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
14
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a ‘bull in a china shop’, to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
13. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court held that, in
exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the High Court can interfere with the order
of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent
perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to
it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
14. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
15
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
16
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
16. Annexure A5 select list of officers eligible for promotion
to the category of Accounts Officer/Administrative Assistant in
Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department for the
year 2026 was published on 24.04.2026, which was prepared by
the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher), which met on
26.03.2026. The petitioner did not implead any of the persons
included in Annexure A5 select list in the original application.
17. In A. Janardhana [(1983) 3 SCC 601] at paragraph
36, the Apex Court held thus;
“36. It was contended that those members who have scored
a march over the appellant in 1974 seniority list, having not
been impleaded as respondents, no relief can be given to
the appellant. In the writ petition filed in the High Court,
there were in all 418 respondents. Amongst them, first two
were Union of India and Engineer in Chief, Army
Headquarters, and the rest presumably must be those
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
17
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026shown senior to the appellant. By an order made by the High
Court, the names of respondent 3 to 418 were deleted since
notices could not be served on them on account of the
difficult in ascertaining their present addresses on their
transfers subsequent to the filing of these petitions.
However, it clearly appears that some direct recruits led by
Mr. Chitkara appeared through counsel Shri Murlidhar Rao
and had made the submissions on behalf of the direct
recruits. Further an application was made to this Court by 9
direct recruits led by Shri T. Sudhakar for being impleaded
as parties, which application was granted and Mr. P. R.
Mridul, learned senior counsel appeared for them. Therefore,
the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and
the contention can be negatived on this short ground.
However, there is a more cogent reason why we would not
countenance this contention. In this case, appellant does not
claim seniority over any particular individual in the
background of any particular fact controverted by that
person against whom the claim is made. The contention is
that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing
up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the
relief is claimed against the Union Government restraining it
from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list
and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus the relief
is claimed against the Union Government and not against
any particular individual. In this background, we consider it
unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
18
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026respondents. We may in this connection refer to General
Manager, South Central Rly., Secundrabad v. A. V R.
Sidhanti [1974 (3) SCR 207 at p. 212 : AIR 1974 SC
1755 at P. 1759]. Repelling a contention on behalf of the
appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120
employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in
the case, this Court observed that the respondents (original
petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy
decisions on the ground of their being violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous
to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule
regulating to seniority of government servants is assailed.
In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded
are those against whom the relief is sought, and in whose
absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court.
Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed
that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the
concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any
seniority is claimed by anyone individual against another
particular individual and, therefore, even if technically the
direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not
likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the
respondents for this additional reason must also be
negatived”. (Underline supplied)
18. In A. Janardhana [(1983) 3 SCC 601], noting that
the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against
any particular individual, the Apex Court held that, only for the
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
19
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
reason that the direct recruits who would be affected by the
judgment were not made parties, the writ petition is not likely to
fail. From the facts of the said case, it is clear that the relief sought
therein is against the Union Government, restraining it from
upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list. But in the
instant case, the petitioner is claiming the relief of her inclusion in
the select list and also a direction to keep the posts vacant, which
will definitely affect the promotion expected by the persons
included in Annexure A5 select list.
19. In Vijaykumar Kaul v. Union of India [(2012) 7
SCC 610], the Apex Court, while considering the non-
impleadment of the affected persons in the select list under
challenge, held thus:
“28. Another aspect needs to be highlighted. Neither before
the tribunal nor before the High Court, Parveen Singh and
others were arrayed as parties. There is no dispute over the
factum that they are senior to the appellants and have been
conferred the benefit of promotion to the higher posts. In
their absence, if any direction is issued for fixation of
seniority, that is likely to jeopardise their interest. When
they have not been impleaded as parties such a relief is
difficult to grant. In this context we may refer with profit to
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
20
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026the decision in Indu Shekhar Singh and Others v. State of
U.P. and Others, AIR 2006 SC 2432 wherein it has been held
thus: –
“There is another aspect of the matter. The appellants
herein were not joined as parties in the writ petition filed by
the respondents. In their absence, the High Court could not
have determined the question of inter se seniority.”
29. In Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta
Bisht and Others, AIR 2010 SC 2613 this Court while dealing
with the concept of necessary parties and the effect of non
– impleadment of such a party in the matter when the
selection process is assailed observed thus: –
“7. ”. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar and Another , AIR 1963 SC 786,
wherein the Court has explained the distinction between
necessary party, proper party and proforma party and
further held that if a person who is likely to suffer from the
order of the Court and has not been impleaded as a party
has a right to ignore the said order as it has been passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice. More so, proviso
to Order I, Rule IX of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter called CPC) provide that non – joinder of
necessary party be fatal. Undoubtedly, provisions of CPC are
not applicable in writ jurisdiction by virtue of the provision
of S.141, CPC but the principles enshrined therein are
applicable. (Vide Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of
Gujarat; AIR 1965 SC 1153; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v.
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
21
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026Nandlal, Khodidas Barat and Others [AIR 1974 SC 2105];
and Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate
Tribunal, Gwalior and Others [AIR 1987 SC 88].
8. In Prabodh Verma and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
AIR 1985 SC 167; and Tridip Kumar Dingal and Others v.
State of West Bengal and Others [2009 (1) SCC 768 : (AIR
2008 SC (Supp) 824], it has been held that if a person
challenges the selection process, successful candidates or
at least some of them are necessary parties.”
30. From the aforesaid enunciation of law there cannot be
any trace of doubt that an affected party has to be
impleaded so that the doctrine of audi alteram partem is
not put into any hazard”.
(underline supplied)
20. In Vinod. V v. University of Kerala [ILR 2024(2)
ker. 196], in a similar situation of non-impleadment of the
persons in the promotion list under challenge, a division Bench of
this Court held thus;
“31. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners that some of the party
respondents have filed W.P.(C)No.6297 of 2019 and
W.P.(C)No.4755 of 2019 seeking a declaration that there is
no requirement of test for promotion and that promotion
has to be made irrespective of the passing or date of
passing the test. W.P.(C)No.8866 of 2018 was filed seeking
promotion based on Ext.P8 which has been assailed by the
CNR : KLHC0104394320262026:KER:53774
22
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026petitioners herein. However, in none of these cases, the
affected persons have been made parties. The party
respondents on the other hand contend that though
affected persons have not been made parties in the said
writ petitions, paper publication has been effected which is
sufficient notice to the affected parties. We disagree.
Publication in the newspaper does not cure the defect of
non joinder of necessary parties. There was only a specified
and definite number of candidates who were required to be
impleaded. It is not as if there was a large unspecified
number of people to be affected. In such cases, resort
cannot be made to Rule 148 of the Kerala High Court Rules,
which Rule can be applied only when very large number of
candidates are involved and it is not possible to pin point
those candidates with details. Hence, the writ petitions filed
by the party respondents will have to fail on the ground of
absence of necessary parties in the party array. This is
because the prayer sought for in the writs filed by the party
respondents if accepted, would result in a total
rearrangement of the seniority list by which the seniority
and promotion of several employees would be affected. It
was thus imperative that all those persons who would be
affected, should have been impleaded as they would be
adversely affected without being heard (K.H.Siraj v. High
Court of Kerala [2006 (6) SCC 395])”.
(underline supplied)
21. Though Annexure A5 select list was published on
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
23
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
24.04.2026, the petitioner did not object the same, till the filing
of the original application. It is evident from Annexure A5 select
list and from the pleadings in the original application that if the
contention of the petitioner is found in her favour, the persons
included in Annexure A5 select list will be adversely affected. In
such circumstances, they cannot be held as not necessary parties
to the original application.
22. Annexure A5 select list for promotion to the post of
Accounts Officer was prepared by the Departmental Promotion
Committee (Higher) in its meeting on 26.03.2026, which requires
a detailed consideration of the merit and suitability of the persons
in the feeder category. The petitioner is claiming the benefit of
reservation in promotion on the basis of Section 34 of the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. To accept the contention of
the petitioner, a detailed analysis of the facts pleaded in the
original application, and the contentions of the persons whose
rights will be prejudiced, is necessary. Therefore, an interim order
as sought in the original application cannot be granted in favour
of the petitioner.
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
24
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the judgments
referred to supra, we find no illegality or impropriety in the
impugned order of the Tribunal that if the vacancies are kept
vacant as requested by the petitioner, the persons included in the
select list will be adversely affected and therefore without their
presence it is not possible to consider the granting of an interim
order in the original application. In such circumstances, we find
no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal.
In the result, this original petition stands dismissed. All
pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
25
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 190 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S DISABILITY
CERTIFICATE NO. 644/2002 DATED 04.07.2002 ISSUED
BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD, IDUKKI ATTESTED BY
THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ADIMALI, ON
16.05.2008
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES PRESCRIBING THE
QUALIFICATION FOR THE POST OF ACCOUNTS OFFICER,
OFFICES OF THE DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE AND
TRAINING, ISSUED VIDE GO(P) NO. 464/1966/PRD
DATED 26.11.1966
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF OM NO. 36012/1/2020-ESTT.(RES.-II)
DATED 17.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P)NO.6/2023/SJD DATED, 26-
10-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Annexure A4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WA 173/2025 DATED 06.10.2025 OF THE HON’BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN SHOYAB KA V. STATE OF
KERALA 2025:KER:73015
Annexure A5 TRUE SELECT LIST OF OFFICERS ELIGIBLE FOR
PROMOTION TO THE CATEGORY OF ACCOUNTS OFFICER/
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IN AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPARTMENT FOR
THE YEAR 2026, PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL
PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER), WHICH MET ON
26.03.2026 PUBLISHED BY WAY OF G.O. (P) NO.
7/2026/AGRI DATED 24.04.2026
Annexure A6 TRUE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SENIORITY LIST IN THE
POST OF SENIOR CLERK FOR THE PERIOD BETWEEN
26.01.2005 TO 03.10.2013 ISSUED VIDE ORDER SA(4)-
7241/14 DTD 05/05/2016 BY THE AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENT AND FARMERS’ WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.05.2013
FILED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Annexure A7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.05.2014
PREFERRED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT
Annexure A7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.05.2019
PREFERRED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT AND 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME
COURT DATED 19.05.2022 IN CONTEMPT PETITION
680/2020 IN CA 1567/2017
CNR : KLHC010439432026
2026:KER:53774
26
OP(KAT)No.190 of 2026
Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. AGRI-EB3/100/2022-
AGRI DATED 05.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO. ADFW/6521/2022-SA4
DATED 31.06.2024 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
THE APPLICANT
Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD AND 5TH RESPONDENT,
DATED 22.05.2026, ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT
Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI DATED 30.03.2026 PREFERRED
BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMER’S
WELFARE, DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY NO. ADFW/4418/2026-SA2
DATED 30.04.2026, ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND FARMER’S WELFARE, DIRECTORATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI DATED 28.03.2026 PREFERRED
BY MR. DAVISON JOSEPH
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA 932/2026 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON’BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2026 IN OA
932/2026 ISSUED BY THE HON’BLE KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.11.2021
ISSUED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP(C) 3622/2021
TITLED ANU JAYAPALAN V. UNION OF INDIA, STAYING
THE SELECTION PROCESS INITIATED IN VIOLATION OF
THE RPWD ACT 2016
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.09.2021
IN WP(C)19808/2021 TITLED KJ VARGHESE V. STATE OF
KERALA
Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.12.20211
MODIFYING THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.09.2021 IN
WP(C)19808/2021 TITLED KJ VARGHESE V. STATE OF
KERALA
