Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 320 (KER)

Alhafis P. C v. Administrator

2026-03-19

Basant Balaji, Devan Ramachandran

body2026
JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The petitioner herein was placed second in a rank list prepared by the Lakshadweep Administration, consequent to a notification issued by them dated 05.08.2017, to the post of Revenue Inspector. The 3 rd respondent in these matters was placed rank No.1, but the petitioner asserts that she ought not to be granted appointment because, her qualification is “tainted”. 2. Sri.K.P.S Suresh - appearing for the petitioner, explained that the qualification required, to be considered to the post of Revenue Inspector, is a Degree and pass in Chain Survey (Lower) Examination; and admitted that both the candidates, namely the petitioner and the 3 rd respondent, have the afore qualifications. His contention, however, was that the passing of the Chain Survey (Lower) Examination by the 3 rd respondent was at the time when she was on Child Care Leave (CCL); and hence that she was proceeded against disciplinarily by the Administration, to be found guilty and imposed with a punishment. He argued that, in such perspective, the qualification acquired by the 3 rd respondent can only be seen to be “tainted”; and hence that she ought not to be even considered for the post of Revenue Inspector. 3. Sri.R.V Sreejith – learned Standing Counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration, however, submitted that, though the afore facts stated against the 3 rd respondent are true, there is one relevant factor in her favour, namely, that the disciplinary action finally led only to a warning, which, as per the extant Rules and Regulations, – do not constitute a bar for consideration of a candidate for promotion or appointment. He then added that, on the rank list being published, the applicant had, in fact, challenged it before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’ for short) by filing O.A No.180/00129/2020, on the same allegation as afore, namely that her qualification is “tainted”; but that the learned Tribunal delivered order dated 01.04.2022 directing the Competent Authority to finalise the disciplinary action against the 3 rd respondent within a period of six months. He pointed out that, in the said order, the competent authority of the Lakshadweep Administration was given liberty to take steps for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector, depending up on the outcome of the inquiry; and that, since the said respondent was only granted a punishment of warning, she was found eligible to be appointed. He pointed out that, in the said order, the competent authority of the Lakshadweep Administration was given liberty to take steps for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector, depending up on the outcome of the inquiry; and that, since the said respondent was only granted a punishment of warning, she was found eligible to be appointed. He prayed that, therefore, these Original Petitions be dismissed. 4. Before we move forward, we must record why there are two original petitions and why we are hearing them together. 5. The appellant filed O.A No.443 of 2023 before the learned Tribunal, with a prayer that the Lakshadweep Administration be directed not to issue any order of appointment to the 3 rd respondent; and further that, if it has already been done, she be reverted to her original post of ‘Gumastha’ and he be appointed in her place. 6. While so, the 3 rd respondent filed O.A No.412 of 2023, requesting that the Lakshadweep Administration be directed to appoint her to the post of Revenue Inspector, based on the Rank list. 7. Both these Original Petitions were heard by the learned Tribunal together and the impugned judgment was passed. 8. The learned Tribunal has dismissed O.A No.443 of 2023 of the petitioner; while, O.A No. 412 of 2023 filed by the 3 rd respondent has been allowed; thus directing that she be appointed. 9. The appellant has filed O.P(CAT) No.145 of 2025 against the order in O.A No.443 of 2023; and O.P(CAT) No.8 of 2026, impugning the final order in O.A No.412 of 2023, after having obtained leave of this Court to do so, since he was not a respondent in this case before the learned Tribunal. 10. The essential question for our consideration is whether the qualification of the 3 rd respondent is construed to be bad, as asserted by the petitioner; or, in the alternative, is liable to be discarded for the purpose of appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector. 11. Pertinently, it is without dispute that both the candidates have the same qualifications; but the singular allegation against the 3 rd respondent is that she cleared the Chain Survey (Lower) Examination, while she was on CCL. One cannot understand how the qualification can become “tainted” when there is neither a challenge to her certificate, nor an imputation that she did not clear the examination as per law. One cannot understand how the qualification can become “tainted” when there is neither a challenge to her certificate, nor an imputation that she did not clear the examination as per law. The only allegation is that she did so, while she was on leave that and her action in doing so, is in contravention of the applicable disciplinary and Service rules. 12. As seen above, when the rank list was published, the petitioner had challenged the same on the very same ground, that the qualification of the 3 rd respondent is incapable of being considered; but it led to a Final Order from the learned Tribunal, where the Lakshadweep Administration was directed to complete the disciplinary inquiry against her and then to take a final decision. 13. Sri.R.V.Sreejith, as recorded earlier, submits that, going by the extant Rules and Regulations – punishment of censure – which alone has been imposed on the 3 rd respondent, would not prohibit or preclude her from being considered, either for promotion or for any other service benefits. 14. Sri.Ashik Akthar Hajigothi – learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent, in response to the contentions of the appellant, submitted that they are wholly untenable and without any legal basis because merely since his client had completed the examination while she was on leave, it does not make the qualification acquired by her in any manner unacceptable in law. He contended that, at the best, the only imputation liable against her client is that she violated the applicable Service Rules, in clearing the examinations while on leave; and that she has been punished appositely for this by imposition of censure. He predicated that the learned Tribunal has committed no error, and requested that this Original Petition be dismissed. 15. Be that as it may, the submissions of Sri.K.P.S Suresh is specifically to the effect that the qualification of the 3 rd respondent is “tainted”. We have used the same word as used by him, to understand the intent of the petitioner. 16. When such allegation is made, it ought to have been for the appellant to establish that the qualification was bad for any reason; or that the certificate of the 3 rd respondent having cleared the examination was vitiated or illegal in any manner. But, he has no such case. 17. 16. When such allegation is made, it ought to have been for the appellant to establish that the qualification was bad for any reason; or that the certificate of the 3 rd respondent having cleared the examination was vitiated or illegal in any manner. But, he has no such case. 17. His only contention is that, since the 3 rd respondent cleared the examination while she was on leave, it has to be seen to have been done illegally. 18. We cannot find approval with the afore contention of the petitioner and are persuaded to find favour with the views of the learned Tribunal because, there is a difference between saying that the qualification is “tainted”; and that it has been acquired in violation of the service rules. The latter would not make the qualification bad, but would render the 3 rd respondent amenable to the disciplinary action, which was done and she was imposed with the punishment of censure. If she is now denied the appointment of Revenue Inspector for the same reason, it would amount to double jeopardy, which is impermissible under the Constitutional Scheme. In the above circumstances, we find no reasons to intervene; and consequently both these Original Petitions are dismissed.