Quasi-Judicial Authority Can't Challenge Order Setting Aside Its Own Decision: Kerala High Court Rejects Admission Supervisory Committee's Appeal
Preet Luthra
31 Jan 2026 8:40 PM IST
The Kerala High Court has held that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala, being a statutory body exercising adjudicatory functions under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a writ appeal against a judgment setting aside its quasi-judicial orders.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a quasi-judicial authority cannot challenge an order passed by a superior court interfering with its decision.
The first respondent, a NEET (UG)–2023 candidate, secured admission to the BAMS course for the academic year 2023–2024 in a stray vacancy at Santhigiri Ayurveda Medical College under the OBC category, on the basis that he belonged to the Chakkala Nair community, which was included in the OBC list through a Government Order dated 11.09.2023.
Subsequently, the Tahsildar issued a certificate clarifying that the community recorded in the candidate's SSLC certificate as “Hindu Nair” was in fact “Hindu Chakkala Nair”, and the correction was published in the Kerala Gazette. Non-creamy layer and caste certificates were also issued thereafter.
The College Principal sought approval of the admission from the Admission Supervisory Committee. However, the Committee withheld approval and later issued orders disapproving and cancelling the admission granted under the OBC category.
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.
By judgment dated 30.01.2025, the learned Single Judge set aside the orders of the Committee and declared that the candidate was eligible for admission to the BAMS course under the OBC category, in view of the Government Order and the caste certificate relied on by him.
The Admission Supervisory Committee thereafter filed the present writ appeal challenging the judgment of the Single Judge.
The principal issue considered by the Division Bench was whether the Admission Supervisory Committee, which exercises quasi-judicial powers under the Act of 2017, could be treated as an aggrieved person entitled to maintain a writ appeal against a judgment setting aside its own quasi-judicial orders.
The candidate contended 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.
The Committee, on the other hand, 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.
The High Court examined the scheme of the Act of 2017 and noted that the Admission Supervisory Committee is constituted under Section 3 of the Act and is vested with powers under Section 8 to inquire into admissions and take appropriate action.
The Court observed that, for the purpose of such inquiry, the Committee is vested with powers of a civil court and that its functions are hence adjudicatory in nature.
The Court further noted that Section 12 of the Act provides a statutory remedy of appeal to any person aggrieved by an order of the Committee. It observed that the beneficiary or the person adversely affected by a decision of the Committee would always be a third party, and not the Committee itself, which had taken the decision.
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.
It further held that merely because the Committee was arrayed as a respondent in the writ petition, it did not acquire the status of an aggrieved person entitled to maintain an appeal.
The Bench observed that if quasi-judicial bodies were permitted to challenge adverse orders against their decisions, it would lead to an “anomalous situation” where such authorities would routinely file appeals whenever their decisions are interfered with by courts.
Holding that the Admission Supervisory Committee is not an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the writ appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of non-maintainability, without entering into the merits of the dispute relating to the candidate's admission.