Adjudicating Authority Cannot Challenge Higher Authority's Order: Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ Appeal Filed By Admission Supervisory Committee As Not Maintainable
Quasi-judicial regulator not an “aggrieved party”; would create an anomaly where every quasi-judicial body becomes a litigant whenever its orders are overturned
Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S., Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on the limits of statutory regulators has held that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education (ASC) cannot maintain a writ appeal to defend its own quasi-judicial order once it has been set aside by a single-judge bench of the High Court.
The division bench observed that the ASC’s role under the Act is adjudicatory, not administrative since it conducts inquiries, exercises civil court–like powers, and passes decisions affecting third parties, functions inherently quasi-judicial. The bench further noted that an adjudicating authority cannot defend its own order in appeal, as it is not personally or legally aggrieved. Permitting such appeals would create an anomaly where every quasi-judicial body becomes a litigant whenever its orders are overturned, it further said.
Accordingly, a bench Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed, “…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 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”.
“…Merely for the reason that the Admission Supervisory Committee was made a party in those cases, it cannot be said that it has the right to challenge the judgment passed against the decision taken by the committee”, the bench further opined.
Advocate Mary Benjamin, Standing Counsel appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocates P. Sreekumar and George Poonthottam appeared for the respondents.
A student admitted to the BAMS course (2023–24) at Santhigiri Ayurveda Medical College under the OBC category had his admission withheld and later cancelled by the ASC through orders dated 25-06-2024 and 05-09-2024, on scrutiny of his community status.
The student relied on a Government Order recognizing Chakkala Nair as OBC and subsequent caste and non-creamy layer certificates while challening the Committee’s orders before the High Court.
Pursuant to which by a judgment dated 30-01-2025, the single-judge set aside the ASC’s orders and declared him eligible for OBC admission.
The ASC then filed the present writ appeal against that judgment.
Now, the question before the division bench of the High Court was whether a statutory body exercising quasi-judicial powers (here the ASC) under the Kerala Medical Education Act, 2017, can be treated as an “aggrieved person” entitled to challenge a High Court judgment that set aside its own adjudicatory orders.
The Court answered in negative and drew support from precedents, stating that tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities must remain neutral and cannot act as interested parties in higher forums. It was thus noted that parties affected by the decision not the decision-maker may challenge or support the ruling.
The writ appeal filed by the ASC was dismissed solely on maintainability, affirming that regulatory adjudicators cannot convert themselves into appellants to justify their own decisions. The Single Judge’s ruling in favour of the student therefore stands.
Cause Title: The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education In Kerala v. Karthik Dev R & Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:178]
Appearances:
Appellant: Mary Benjamin, SC, Advocate.
Respondents: Nisha George, Binny Thomas, Sc, K.C. Santhosh Kumar, P. Sreekumar (Sr.) George Poonthottam (Sr.), K.K. Chandralekha, Advocates.