Kerala High Court
Alhafis P. C vs The Administrator on 19 March, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:24751
OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 1
& 8 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 145 OF 2025
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
ALHAFIS P.C,
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O SR.M.K ATTAKOYA
PARKIYA CHETTA HOUSE, P.O. KADMAT U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682556.
BY ADVS.
SMT.REENA SHARON SURESH
SRI.K.P.S.SURESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
1 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
P.O. KAVARATTI, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682555
2 THE COLLECTOR CUM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
U. T OF LAKSHADWEEP P.O. KAVARATTI, U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682555
3 SMT. MARIYATH P. P,
PANDARAPURA HOUSE, AGATTI ISLAND U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP,
PIN - 682553
SRI.R.V.SREEJITH, SC
SRI.ASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJIGOTHI, FOR R3
SRI.VINEETH V, FOR R3
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2026,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).8/2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:24751
OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 2
& 8 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 8 OF 2026
PETITIONER/NOT A PARTY IN THE OA:
AL HAFIS,
AGED 33 YEARS
PARKIACHETTA, P.O KADMAT ISLAND U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP, PIN
- 682556
BY ADVS.
SMT.REENA SHARON SURESH
SRI.K.P.S.SURESH
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 1 & 2/APPLICANT IN OA:
1 THE ADMINISTRATOR,
U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP, P.O. KAVARATTI, PIN - 682555
2 THE COLLECTOR CUM DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, P.O. KAVARATTI, PIN -
682555
3 MARIYATH P. P.,
AGED 35 YEARS
PANDARAPPURA, AGATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF
LAKSHADWEEP, PIN - 682553
BY ADV SRI.R.V.SREEJITH
SRI.ASHIQUE AKTHAR HAJIGOTHI, FOR R3
2026:KER:24751
OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 3
& 8 OF 2026
SRI.VINEETH V, FOR R3
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2026,
ALONG WITH OP (CAT).145/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:24751
OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 4
& 8 OF 2026
JUDGMENT
[OP (CAT) Nos.145/2025, 8/2026] 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 3rd 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 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 5 & 8 OF 2026 Administration, however, submitted that, though the afore facts stated against the 3rd 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 3rd 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 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 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 6 & 8 OF 2026 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 3rd 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 3rd 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 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 7 & 8 OF 2026 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. 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 3rd 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 3rd 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.
2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 8 & 8 OF 2026 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 3rd 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 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 9 & 8 OF 2026 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.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE Sru 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 10 & 8 OF 2026 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 145 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEGREE CERTIFICATE OF THE APPLICANT DATED 05.08.2017.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DCA CERTIFICATE DATED 25.03.2013 OF THE APPLICANT.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY TEST LOWER DATED 16.08.2014.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE COURSE CERTIFICATE (AUTOCAD) DATED 05.07.2015 Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO.1/II/2012-LR DATED 01.06.2017.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE F.NO.1/II/2012-LR/ESTT/249 DATED 23.03.2018 FOR RECRUITMENT OF REVENUE INSPECTOR.
Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE RANK WISE LIST FOR POST OF HEAD DRAFTSMAN/REVENUE INSPECTOR (TECHNICAL) Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO.12/05/2020/VDP(KDT)/112 DATED 20.01.2020. [ OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE VILLAGE (DWEEP) PANCHAYAT, KADMAT ] Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B.13/3/2022-COL DATED 17.07.2023 ISSUED BY THE UT ADMINISTRATION ON CONCLUSION OF DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY.
Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.UTLA-01/0923 DATED 13.09.23 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL OF THIS PETITIONER TO THE UT ADMINISTRATION.
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B.13/3/2022-COL/625
DATED 17-07-2023 OF ADDL. DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, UTLA ( FINDINGS/ ORDER ON DI) Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM VIDE F.NO.11012/12/2016-ESTT. A -III DATED 06-12-
2016 CLARIFICATION REGARDING EFFECT OF
WARNING, CENSURE ETC. ON PROMOTION
Exhibit P1 OFFICE ORDER OF DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, U.T OF
LAKSHADWEEP VIDE F.NO.1/11/2012-LR/ESTT/1038 DATED 10-11-2025 EXTENDING APPOINTMENT TO MRS.MARIYATH P P TO THE POST OF REVENUE INSPECTOR.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, O.A NO.443/ 2023 IN THE FILES OF HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.
2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 11 & 8 OF 2026 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY/REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENT - 1 & 2 DATED 09.01.2024 IN THE OA 443/2023 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION , M.A NO. 166/2024 IN OA NO 443/2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL MOVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR A STAY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS TO MA NO. 166/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS R1 AND R2 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY HON'BLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.
181/443/2023 DATED 10-02-2025 (COMMON ORDER) 2026:KER:24751 OP (CAT) NOS. 145 OF 2025 12 & 8 OF 2026 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 8 OF 2026 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT NOTICE DATED 01- 06-2017 IN FILE NO.1/11/2012-LR Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE U.T ADMINISTRATION BASED ON EXAM HELD ON 06- 12-2019 AND PUBLISHED WITH SIGNATURES DATED 06-02-2020.
Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 129/2020 DATED
01-04-2022
Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE
F.NO.B.13/3/2022-COL DATED 17-07-2023 Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER F.NO.B.13/3/2022-COL DATED 17-07-2023 OF ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, UTLA, KAVARATTI Annexure R1(b) TRUE COPY OF O.M IN F.NO.11012/12/16-ESTT. A
- III DATED 06-12-2016 ISSUED BY DOPT.
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF OA NO.181/00412/2023 IN THE FILES OF HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE STATE RESPONDENT (U.T OF LAKSHADWEEP) IN THE OA NO.412/ 2023 DATED 09-01-2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED BY THE HON'BLE C.A.T IN OA 443/2023 & OA 412/2023 DATED 10-02-2025 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CP NO.39/2025 DATED 01-12- 2025
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OFFICE ORDER IN F.NO.1/11/2012-LR/ESTT/1038 DATED 10-11-2025, GRANTING APPOINTMENT TO SMT. MARIYATH P P AS REVENUE INSPECTOR