BAMS admission row: Quasi-judicial body cannot appeal to defend its own order- Kerala HC

The Bench clarified that, "The decision of the Committee can be supported or challenged by the person benefited or adversely affected by the said decision or by the official respondents who have a duty to see that the admissions are made in a fair and proper manner. If a quasi-judicial body statutorily empowered to take a decision in a dispute between third parties starts to challenge the adverse orders against the decision taken by it before the court of law, then it will create an anomalous situation that in all the cases wherein the decision of the quasi-judicial body were interfered by the Court, such quasi-judicial body or authorities will come up with appeals."

Also read- Kerala HC permits termination of over 31-week-old foetus with severe abnormalities

The case relates to a student who had secured 105 marks in NEET-UG 2023 and was granted admission to the BAMS course at Santhigiri Ayurveda Medical College during the stray vacancy round for the academic year 2023–24.

He secured admission under the OBC category on the basis that he belonged to the Chakkala Nair community, which is included in the OBC list as per a Government Order dated September 11, 2023.

Later, the Tahsildar of Kottarakkara issued a certificate on November 25, 2023, stating that although his SSLC certificate mentioned "Hindu Nair," his correct community is “Hindu Chakkala Nair.” This correction was officially published in the Kerala Gazette on December 12, 2023. After that, he was issued a non-creamy layer certificate and a caste certificate.

Following this, the Principal of the college wrote to the Admission Supervisory Committee asking it to approve the student’s admission under the OBC category. However, the Committee passed an order keeping his admission on hold and directed that his name should not be registered until further orders.

Upset by this decision, the student's mother submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Committee, attaching all required documents. The Principal of the college also replied again, requesting approval of the student’s OBC admission based on the Government Order and the Tahsildar’s certificate.

Despite this, the committee passed another order rejecting and cancelling the student’s admission under the OBC category for the BAMS course.

Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee, the candidate approached the High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

After hearing his arguments, the Single Bench set aside the Committee’s orders and declared that the student was eligible for admission under the OBC category in view of the Government Order and supporting certificates. The judgment was passed on January 30, 2025.

Challenging the Single Judge’s judgment, the Admission Supervisory Committee filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. 

However, during the hearing, the student’s counsel raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Committee, being an adjudicatory authority, could not challenge the judgment of the Single Judge, as it was not an aggrieved party. Reliance was placed on precedents holding that quasi-judicial authorities ought not to support or challenge their own decisions before superior courts.

"It is the responsibility of the appellant to see that the admissions are carried out in a fair and unbiased manner, and if the appellant is not permitted to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge, gross injustice will be the result," said the counsel. 

On the other hand, the committee contended that it had a duty to ensure that admissions were conducted in a fair and unbiased manner and that denial of the right to appeal would result in injustice.

After looking at the provisions of the Kerala Medical Education Act, 2017 (Act 15 of 2017), the Court noted that the Admission Supervisory Committee is a statutory body created under Section 3 of the Act. The Committee has the power to examine complaints under Section 8 of the Act to inquire into admissions and take appropriate action.

Because of these powers, the Court said that the Committee performs a judicial or adjudicatory function. It acts like a decision-making authority in disputes. It is not merely performing administrative or clerical work.

The bench further noted that Section 12 of the Act provides that an “aggrieved person” can file an appeal before the High Court within 30 days against a decision of the Committee. It observed that when the Committee decides a complaint, the people affected are usually third parties (like students or colleges), not the Committee itself.

Relying on precedents, the Court reiterated that an adjudicating authority cannot challenge an order passed by a higher authority, as doing so would undermine the principle of judicial discipline. In this case, even though the Committee was made a respondent in the writ petition, that does not mean it must defend its decision in court.

"It is true that in the present writ petition, the appellant was arrayed as 2nd respondent. But that does not mean that the appellant has a duty to see that the decision taken by it is sustained in a court of law. The appellant Committee is only a proper party to the writ petition. From the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [2015 (5) KHC 16], it is clear that an adjudicating authority cannot challenge the order passed by the higher authority under any circumstance, which otherwise would undermine the principle of judicial discipline. When the decision of the appellant is set aside in the writ petition, the appellant cannot be the aggrieved. It is the person or official respondents benefited by the aforesaid cancelled decision of the appellant can only be the aggrieved," the Bench observed.

The Bench clarified that filing a writ petition before a Single Judge against the Committee’s order is legally valid under the present system. It concluded that the Admission Supervisory Committee cannot challenge the Single Judge’s judgment setting aside its own order.

Accordingly, the writ appeal was dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

To view the official order, click on the link below: 

Also read- 'Doctor' title not exclusive to medical professionals! Kerala HC allows physiotherapists to use Dr prefix