Kerala High Court
Dr. Kavitha Chandran C.I vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 1 2026:KER:14879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 25 OF 2026
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.01.2026 IN OA NO.55 OF 2026 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT:
DR. KAVITHA CHANDRAN C.I.
AGED 44 YEARS
D/O B.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT EKRA 19A,
MOOLAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
EANIKKARA, KARAKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,
KERALA, PIN - 695564
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.C.X.ANTONY BENEDICT
SHRI.EMMANUAL SANJU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, AAKULAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695011
3 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS,
PATTOM PALACE P.O.,
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 2 2026:KER:14879
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695004
SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, SR. GP;
SRI. P. C. SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON 23.02.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 3 2026:KER:14879
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 3rd 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
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 4 2026:KER:14879Annexure 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
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 5 2026:KER:14879
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 appointment as
Professor. It is also stated that Government has enhanced
the upper age limit to 50 in the Department of Higher
Education on the ground that UGC does not prescribe an
upper age limit. Applicant has produced Annexure-A6 series
of notifications by the PSC wherein age relaxation has been
given to different posts of Assistant Professors ranging from
44 to 50. Applicant seeks an interim direction to participate
in the selection process provisionally, subject to the final
outcome of the Original Application.
2. Learned Standing Counsel for the PSC submits that
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 6 2026:KER:14879Annexure-A1 notification is issued in accordance with the
existing executive orders in this regard. PSC is in no position
to deviate from such orders of the Government. It is also
argued that Annexure-A6 series of notifications are jn
respect of Medical Doctors in specialised streams. There the
required qualifications are attained after several years of
study and therefore a need was felt to enhance upper age
limit. In the case of Assistant Professor in Pharmacy, the
qualification required is only a Post Graduate Degree in
Pharmacy which can be obtained even at the age of 22.
Therefore there is no rationale in enhancing the upper age
limit in the instant case. It is further submitted that UGC
never prescribes upper age limit for any post and it is left to
the State Government to prescribe appropriate standards
considering various relevant factors. The post of Assistant
Professor is the entry level post and therefore the upper age
limit prescribed is appropriate. PSC is not in a position to
admit anyone who does not qualify as per the standards set
by the Government.
3. In view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel
for the PSC, the prayer for interim order is declined.
Public Service Commission to file a statement.
Post after two weeks.”
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present
original petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service
Commission and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 7 2026:KER:14879
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the upper age limit was consciously omitted in the UGC
Regulations 2018. The illegality of such age restriction has been
settled by the judgment of this Court in Sebastian Joseph v.
University of Kerala [2022 (6) KLT 525], and in furtherance
of the principles stated in that judgment, the State Government
issued Annexure A4 Government Order dated 11.04.2023,
enhancing the upper age limit for the post of Assistant Professor
to 50 years. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied
on the judgment of the Apex Court in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith
P.S. v. Dr.Rajasree M.S. [2022 (6) KLT 147] in support of his
arguments.
7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala Public Service Commission would submit that the age
and qualification for a particular post are fixed by the Government
and not by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The learned
Standing Counsel pointed out that by G.O.(MS)57/80/Health
dated 07.03.1980, the Government has enhanced the upper age
limit for the posts of Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and
Tutors in pharmacy department as 50, 45 and 40 respectively. By
the order dated 20.06.2012, the Government has enhanced the
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 8 2026:KER:14879
age limit to various categories of posts, the selection of which is
conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission, whether by
special rules or executive orders, uniformly by one year subject to
the condition that in no case, the maximum age limit exceed 50
years, except in the case of a widow/widower who was dependent
on the Government service died-in-harness. Usual relaxation to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and other backward classes was
also permitted by the said order. The Apex Court in Dr.J.Vijayan
v. State of Kerala [(2022) 17 SCC 177] held that the fixation
of the upper age limit is the policy decision of the Government and
the primacy of the Rules framed by the State Government under
Article 309 of the Constitution over the UGC Regulations.
8. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that the State is empowered to prescribe the upper age limit.
Annexure A4 order pertaining to the fixation of upper age limit for
the appointment of Assistant Professor in Government and Aided
Colleges as 50 years is not applicable to Annexure A1 notification,
since Annexure A1 notification pertains to the Medical Education
Department. The learned Government Pleader placed reliance on
the judgment of this Court dated 27.03.2023 in W.A.No.523 of
2023 in support of his arguments.
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 9 2026:KER:14879
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 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
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.
11. 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
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 10 2026:KER:14879
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
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.
12. 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.
13. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 11 2026:KER:14879
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
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.
14. 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
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 12 2026:KER:14879
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High 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 or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice
or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
15. In the original application, the petitioner is challenging
the upper age limit of 41 years fixed in Annexure A1 notification
by the Kerala Public Service Commission for the post of Assistant
Professor (Pharmacy). Admittedly, Annexure A1 notification is
issued in accordance with the existing executive orders issued by
the Government pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for
the Kerala Public Service Commission. As submitted by the
learned standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service
Commission, the Kerala Public Service Commission is not fixing
any upper age limit but issuing the notification based on the
qualification, including age restrictions prescribed by the
Government. The contention of the petitioner is that the fixation
of the upper age limit by the Kerala Public Service Commission is
against the UGC Regulations 2018. In Professor (Dr.) Sreejith
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 13 2026:KER:14879
P.S. [2022 (6) KLT 147], the Apex Court held thus:
“8. Identical question came to be considered by this Court
in the case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra) and Kalyani
Mathivanan (supra). Now, the issue whether the UGC
Regulations shall prevail vis – a – vis the State legislation /
State Act, identical question came to be considered by this
Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case
of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra). While considering the
appointment of the Vice Chancellor in the Sardar Patel
University, Gujarat, it is specifically observed and held by
this Court that the appointment of Vice Chancellor cannot
be made dehors the applicable UGC Regulations, even if the
State Act concerned prescribes diluted eligibility criteria, vis
– a – vis the criteria prescribed in the applicable UGC
Regulations. It is further observed and held by this Court in
the aforesaid decision that the State Act if not on a par with
the UGC Regulations, must be amended to bring it on a par
with the applicable UGC Regulations and until then it is the
applicable UGC Regulations that shall prevail. It is further
observed and held that being a subordinate legislation, UGC
Regulations become part of the Act. It is further observed
and held that in case of any conflict between the State
legislation and the Central legislation, the Central
legislation, i.e., the applicable UGC Regulations shall prevail
by applying the principle of repugnancy under Art.254 of the
Constitution as the subject “education” is contained in the
Concurrent List of Schedule VII of the Constitution. The
observations made in relevant paras are as under:
XXXXX
8.3. The decision of this Court in the case of Gambhirdan K.
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 14 2026:KER:14879Gadhvi (supra) has been subsequently followed by this
Court in the recent decision of this Court in the case
of Anindya Sundar Das and Others (supra) while
considering the appointment of the Vice Chancellor of
Calcutta University. In the said decision, it is also observed
and held in paragraph 56 that in view of the decision in the
case of Gambhirdan K. Gadhvi (supra), even if the
provisions of the State Act allowed the appointment of the
Vice Chancellor by the State government, it would have to
be as per the UGC Regulations and any appointment of Vice
Chancellor in violation of the UGC Regulations shall be void
ab initio. It is further observed that the UGC Regulations
shall become part of the statute framed by Parliament and,
therefore, shall prevail.
8.4. In view of the above two binding decisions of this Court,
any appointment as a Vice Chancellor made on the
recommendation of the Search Committee, which is
constituted contrary to the provisions of the UGC
Regulations, shall be void ab initio. If there is any conflict
between the State legislation and the Union legislation, the
Union law shall prevail, even as per Art.254 of the
Constitution of India, to the extent the provision of the State
legislation is repugnant. Therefore, the submission on behalf
of the State that unless the UGC Regulations are specifically
adopted by the State, the UGC Regulations shall not be
applicable, and the State legislation shall prevail unless UGC
Regulations are specifically adopted by the State cannot be
accepted”.
16. In the judgment dated 27.03.2023 in W.A.No.523 of
2023, a Division Bench of this Court held thus:
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 15 2026:KER:14879
“12. It is seen that in O.P.(KAT) No.133 of 2019 and
connected cases, this Court has held that the provisions in
the Special Rules for the Kerala Technical Education Service
framed under the Kerala Public Services Act under Article
309 of the Constitution applicable to teachers of
Government and aided Polytechnics in the State will not
prevail over the Regulations framed by the AICTE insofar as
it relates to the qualifications, method of appointments etc.
of the members of the service and the provisions in the said
Special Rules to the extent the same is repugnant to the
Regulations framed by the AICTE would be void and
inoperative. In O.P.(KAT) No.542 of 2019, the question that
arose for consideration was whether the method of
appointment or the source from which appointment could
be made to the post of lecturers in technical streams in
Polytechnics, as prescribed in the Regulations framed by the
AICTE, would prevail over the relevant provisions contained
in the Special Rules for the Kerala Technical Educational
Service. After referring to the decision in O.P.(KAT) No.133
of 2019 and connected cases as also the decision of the
Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma, this Court took the
view that a distinction has to be drawn between cases where
the stipulation in the Regulations relates to maintenance of
the standards of technical education and cases where the
stipulation relates to the age of superannuation of teachers
and other staff of Technical Institutions, and held that the
stipulation in the Regulations framed by the AICTE as
regards the method of appointment to the post of lecturer
being a requirement relating to maintenance of standards of
technical education, the same will prevail over the
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 16 2026:KER:14879
corresponding provisions in the Special Rules.
13. One of the questions considered by the Apex Court in
Jagdish Prasad Sharma was whether the Regulations
framed by the University Grants Commission(UGC) under
the University Grants Commission Act (UGC Act) which
relate to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution, could alter the conditions of service of teachers
and other staff of the Universities and colleges affiliated to
the Universities prescribed by the State in terms of
enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution and the
said question was answered by the Apex Court in the
negative, holding that Under Entry 25 of List III of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the State is entitled
to enact its own laws with regard to the service conditions
of teachers and other staff of universities and colleges within
the State and the same will have effect unless they are
repugnant to any Central legislation. Paragraph 70 of the
judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma dealing with the said
question reads thus:
“70. The authority of the Commission to frame regulations
with regard to the service conditions of teachers in the
Centrally-funded educational institutions is equally well
established. As has been very rightly done in the instant
case, the acceptance of the Scheme in its composite form
has been left to the discretion of the State Governments.
The concern of the State Governments and their authorities
that UGC has no authority to impose any conditions with
regard to its educational institutions is clearly unfounded.
There is no doubt that the Regulations framed by UGC
relate to Schedule VII List I Entry 66 to the Constitution,
but it does not empower the Commission to alter any of
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 17 2026:KER:14879the terms and conditions of the enactments by the States
under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under List III Entry
25, the State is entitled to enact its own laws with regard
to the service conditions of the teachers and other staff of
the universities and colleges within the State and the same
will have effect unless they are repugnant to any Central
legislation.” (underline supplied)
It is seen that it was contended before this court in W.P.(C)
Nos.10257 and 11511 of 2016 instituted by a few private
college teachers that in view of the adoption of the
Regulations issued by the UGC under the UGC Act by the
State of Kerala, the Universities and affiliated colleges in the
State are bound to comply with the same in its entirety
including the provision therein as regards the age of
superannuation of teachers, and sought identical reliefs as
claimed by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. This
court rejected the said contention and dismissed the said
writ petitions, placing reliance on Jagdish Prasad Sharma,
holding that the Regulations framed by the UGC under the
UGC Act, which relate to Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution cannot alter the conditions of
service of persons serving a State prescribed in terms of the
enactments under Article 309 of the Constitution. The said
decision was affirmed by the Division Bench, and Civil
Appeal No.5037 of 2022 preferred against the decision of
the Division Bench before the Apex Court was dismissed on
02.08.2022, holding that the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma still hold the field.
In the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in Jagdish
Prasad Sharma and Civil Appeal No.5037 of 2022, there
cannot be any doubt to the proposition that the Regulations
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 18 2026:KER:14879framed under enactments which relate to Entry 66 of List I
of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution cannot alter the
conditions of the employees of the State Government
prescribed in terms of enactments under Article 309 of the
Constitution. Of course, those are judgments rendered in
the context of the Regulations issued by the UGC under the
UGC Act. As we are dealing with the Regulations issued by
the AICTE under the AICTE Act in the cases on hand, the
question to be considered is as to whether there exists any
reason to take a view different from the view taken by the
Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma.
14. Even though the power to legislate on all matters
relating to State Public Services is included in Entry 41 of
List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with
Article 246 of the Constitution, it is now settled that Article
309 is a special provision in respect of two specific matters
namely, recruitment and conditions of service of persons
appointed to public services and posts in connection with
the affairs of the Union or the State. As such, there cannot
be any doubt that in terms of enactments issued under
Article 309 of the Constitution, the State is entitled to make
rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service its
employees, including the age of superannuation. As noted,
the question considered by the Apex Court in Jagdish
Prasad Sharma was whether the Regulations framed by
the UGC under the UGC Act which relate to Entry 66 of List
I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution could alter any
of the conditions of service of teachers and other staff of the
Universities and colleges within the State prescribed in
terms of the enactments under Article 309 of the
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 19 2026:KER:14879
Constitution. As already noticed, in Jagdish Prasad
Sharma, the Apex Court answered the said question in the
negative. In other words, the provisions in the Regulations
framed under the Statutes relatable to Entry 66 of List I of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, to the extent the
same encroach upon the power of the State Government to
prescribe the conditions of service of its employees in terms
of Article 309 of the Constitution, would be invalid. We do
not find any reason why the said proposition cannot be
applied in the context of the Regulations issued by the
AICTE under the AICTE Act. Needless to say, the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma
would squarely apply to the Regulations issued by the AICTE
under the AICTE Act as well.”
17. In Dr.J.Vijayan [(2022) 17 SCC 177], the Apex
Court held thus:
“27. As found by the Single Bench of the High Court, the
decision to issue the Circular dated 14th August 2012,
withdrawing the regulation regarding enhancement of the
age of superannuation, was taken by the Central
Government, in consultation with the States and in
deference to the powers given to the States to prescribe the
service conditions of its employees, which would fall within
the ambit of policy decision, undisputedly within the
exclusive domain of the respective State Governments. The
Single Bench held that the Policy of the State Government,
which is evidenced by the statutory provisions mandating
teachers of aided affiliated colleges to retire at the age of 56
years, and that of the Universities at the age of 60 years,
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 20 2026:KER:14879has been crystalized by enactments under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India.
28. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the
respective parties found, and rightly, that most of the issues
raised in the appeals were concluded against the Appellants
by the judgment and order of this Court in Jagdish Prasad
Sharma (supra). The Division Bench observed that this
Court had held that it was mandatory for the UGC to be
guided by the directions issued by the Central Government
on questions of policy relating to national purposes by
discharging its functions under the UGC Act. The Division
Bench found that the UGC was bound to follow the directions
issued by the Central Government in view of Section 20 of
the UGC Act.
29. The Division Bench of the High Court also found that
the State Governments had the discretion to accept the
scheme proposed under the UGC Regulations relying on the
judgment in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) and in
particular Paragraph 72, thereof. The Division Bench held:-
“14. It is in the light of the above authoritative
pronouncement of the Apex Court, that the present
contentions of the counsel for the appellants are required
to be considered. The contention that the UGC Regulations
were made in exercise of the power under Entry 66 List l
Schedule VII of the Constitution, while the State
enactments are made under Entry 25 List III Schedule VII
and for the said reason, in the event of repugnancy, the
Central enactment would prevail, has to fail for more
reasons than one. in the first place, the State Laws
prescribing the age of retirement of teachers are made in
exercise of the power under Article 309 of the Constitution.
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 21 2026:KER:14879
The Apex Court has found Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra)
that such enactments would remain unaffected by the
stipulations contained in the UGC Regulations. Secondly, it
has been further held by the Court in the said decision that
the UGC does not have any power to stipulate the service
conditions of teachers. Therefore, such power is vested
entirely in the State. Thirdly, obviously in recognition of the
above position of law the UGC Regulations have conferred
a discretion on the State Governments to decide whether
to implement the Regulations or not. in view of the
conferment of the discretion as noted above, no question
of repugnancy arises in these cases. Therefore, we do not
think it necessary to consider the above contention in any
further detail.
15. On the next contention that the Scheme under the UGC
Regulations, 2010 has to be accepted in full as a composite
one and that adoption of the Scheme without enhancing
the retirement age of teachers was bad, we find that the
said issue has been concluded by the Supreme Court.
Though a similar contention was put forward in Jagdish
Prasad Sharma (supra) with respect to the Government
Order dated 10.12.2010, the same did not find favour with
the Court. The said Government Order evidenced herein as
Ext. P10 in W.A. No. 854 of 2016 provides at paragraph 6
as follows:-
6. Government are also pleased to order that where there
are any provision in the Regulations inconsistent with the
provisions in the G.O. read as 1st paper above, those
provisions in the G.P. would override the provisions in the
Regulations to the extent of such inconsistency.
Reference No. 1 in the said Government Order is to G.O.(P)
NO. 58/2010/H.Edn. Dated 27.3.2010 (Ext.P8 in W.A. No.
854 of 2016). It is the said Government Order that is
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 22 2026:KER:14879directed to prevail as per Clause 6 extracted above. It has
been ordered by the said Government Order that the age
of superannuation shall continue as at present. In the
above context, it is necessary to notice that as per letter
No. F.1- 7/2010-U.ll dated 14.08.2012 of the MHRD (a
copy of which has been handed over to us by the Counsel
in the Court), it has been clarified that the issue regarding
age of retirement has been left to the decision of the State
Governments. Paragraph 5 that deals with the above
aspect is extracted hereunder for convenience of
reference:
5. Bearing in mind that the question of enhancement of
age of retirement is exclusively within the domain of the
policy making power of the State Governments, the issue
of age of retirement has been left to the State
Governments to decide at their level. The condition of
enhancement of age of superannuation to 65 years as
mentioned in this Ministry’s letter dated 31.12.2008 may
be treated as withdrawn, for the purpose of seeking
reimbursement of central share of arrears to be paid to
State University and College teachers. However, the other
conditions as mentioned in the letter cited above shall
continue to apply.
Though a contention has been put forward by the counsel
for the Appellants that, the condition has been withdrawn
for the purpose of seeking reimbursement of the central
share of arrears alone, we are not prepared to accept the
same in view of the opening sentence in the said clause
which declares in unambiguous terms that enhancement of
age of retirement is exclusively within the domain of the
powers of the State Government and that for the said
reason, the issue of age of retirement has been left to the
State Governments to decide at their level.
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 23 2026:KER:14879
xxxx xxxx xxxx
17. In the view that we have taken above, we do not
consider it necessary to refer to or discuss the other
decisions on which reliance has been placed. The question
of fixing the retirement age of teachers is essentially a
matter of policy. The said policy would have to be adopted
by the State Government taking into account a number of
factors. As contended before us by the learned Additional
Advocate General, the State of Kerala does not suffer from
a dearth of qualified candidates to be appointed as
teachers. There are a large number of qualified teachers,
including Ph.D. Holders who are waiting for employment.
They are persons trained in advanced methods of
instruction and teaching techniques. At the same time,
teachers like the appellants who are approaching
retirement age are not persons who could be described as
aged or infirm. They are in their prime of life, endowed with
the rich experience both in teaching as well as in guiding
research projects. The wisdom of the decision to
superannuate them at such a prime point of time in their
lives is also questionable. A decision can be taken only by
balancing both the above aspects as well as other relevant
factors that may require to be taken into account. Such an
informed decision would have to be taken by the law
makers and not by courts. As at present, the UGC
Regulations, 2010 cannot affect the State laws governing
the age of superannuation. UGC Regulations have in
recognition of the above position granted a discretion to
the State to take a decision with respect to the manner of
implementation of the Regulations. Accordingly, the State
Government has decided not to enhance the age of
retirement. We notice that, a similar claim for
enhancement in retirement age has been considered by
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 24 2026:KER:14879another Division Bench of this Court and rejected in Mathai
M.M. v. Elizabeth Xavier 2011 (2) K.L.T. 468. The said
decision is also binding on
30. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants
referred to paragraphs 68 and 72 of the judgment of this
Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra) set out
hereinbelow:-
“68. Another anxiety which is special to certain States,
such as the States of Uttar Pradesh and Kerala, has also
come to light during the hearing. In both the States, the
problem is one of surplusage and providing an opportunity
for others to enter into service. On behalf of the State of
Kerala, it had been urged that there were a large number
of educated unemployed youth, who are waiting to be
appointed, but by retaining teachers beyond the age of 62
years, they were being denied such opportunity. As far as
the State of U.P. is concerned, it is one of job expectancy,
similar to that prevailing in Kerala. The State Governments
of the said two States were, therefore, opposed to the
adoption of the UGC Scheme, although, the same has not
been made compulsorily applicable to the universities,
colleges and other institutions under the control of the
State authorities.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
72. As far as the States of Kerala and U.P. are concerned,
they have their own problems which are localised and
stand on a different footing from the other States, none of
whom who appear to have the same problem. Education
now being a List III subject, the State Government is at
liberty to frame its own laws relating to education in the
State and is not, therefore, bound to accept or follow the
Regulations framed by UGC. It is only natural that if they
wish to adopt the Regulations framed by the Commission
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 25 2026:KER:14879under Section 26 of the UGC Act, 1956, the States will have
to abide by the conditions as laid down by the
Commission.”
31. It is not understood how those paragraphs are of
assistance to the Appellant. There is no finding in paragraph
68, but only discussion of facts, which led to the decision,
and paragraph 72 is clearly against the Appellants. This
Court unequivocally held that the State was not bound to
accept or follow the UGC Regulations”.
18. As mentioned above, Annexure A1 notification issued
by the Kerala Public Service Commission is in accordance with the
executive orders issued by the Government. Whether the
petitioner has to challenge those executive orders or whether the
petitioner can challenge a particular stipulation in Annexure A1
notification alone is a matter yet to be considered by the Tribunal
in the original application. Moreover, the reply statements of the
respondents are also yet to be placed on record before the
Tribunal. Therefore, at this stage, we are not entering into any
finding on the issue involved in the original application, based on
the contentions raised by the parties as mentioned above, as it
will be a premature decision without the necessary pleadings. At
this preliminary stage, the Tribunal cannot be found fault in
declining the interim relief in favour of the petitioner as prayed in
the original application. Therefore, we are of the considered
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 26 2026:KER:14879
opinion that the petitioner has not made out any sufficient ground
to interfere with the declining of the interim reliefs by the Tribunal,
and instead, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal can be directed
to dispose of the original application itself on merits.
In the result, this original petition is disposed of, directing
the respondents to file their reply statements before the Tribunal
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the
reply statements are not already filed. The petitioner is entitled to
move before the Tribunal for an early hearing of the original
application itself on merits, pointing out the urgency, if so advised.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
nak
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 27 2026:KER:14879
ENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 25 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION FOR SELECTION
TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
PHARMACY, BEARING CATEGORY NO. 20-21
691/2025, DATED 31-12-2025
Annexure A2 THE PRINTOUT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF UGC-NET
INFORMATION BULLETIN PUBLISHED ON THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE UGC
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE
23-30 HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN SEBASTIAN
JOSEPH & ANR. VS UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.,
2022 (6)_KLT 525 (WP(C) 28550/2022 DECIDED ON
27-10-2022)
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO. 4/2023 HEDN-
DATED 11-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF MEDICAL
INSTITUTIONS (QUALIFICATIONS OF FACULTY)
REGULATIONS.,2025 (F NO.N-P051 (12)/18/2024-
PGMEB-NMC DATED 30-06-2025 ISSUED BY NATIONAL
MEDICAL COMMISSION
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN GENERAL MEDICINE (CATEGORY NO.
344/2023, GAZETTE DATED 16-10-2023
Annexure A6(a) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICALTION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN ANATOMY (CATEGORY NO. 392/2024,
GAZETTE DATED 30-10-2024
Annexure A6(b) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN PHYSIOLOGY (CATEGORY NO.
396/2024 GAZETTE, DATED 30-10-2024)
Annexure A6(c) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN NEONATOLOGY (CATEGORY NO.
683/2025, GAZETTE DATED 31-12-2025)
Annexure A6(d) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN ENDOCRINOLOGY (CATEGORY
NO.684/2025 DATED 31-12-2025)
Annexure A6(e) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN 31-12-2025)
Annexure A6(f) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN CARDIO VASCULAR AND THORACIC
OP(KAT)No.25 of 2026 28 2026:KER:14879
SURGERY (CATEGORY NO.685/2025 DATED 31-12-
2025)
Annexure A6(g) THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE
PSC IN THE SELECTION TO THE POST OF ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR IN RESPIRATORY MEDICINE (CATEGORY
NO. 688/2025 DATED 31-12-2025)
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 55 OF 2026 ON THE
FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH DATED 13.01.2026
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-01-2026 IN
OA NO.55 OF 2026 OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BENCH
