Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed the Land Revenue Commissioner to consider the petitioner’s promotion claim through the sealed cover procedure. The case concerned the petitioner, a government employee included in the select list for promotion to Tahsildar, who was later excluded from the final promotion order after initiation of disciplinary proceedings alleging procedural lapses. The petitioner challenged this exclusion, asserting that the pendency of such proceedings should not automatically bar consideration for promotion. The Court held that while promotion may be deferred due to a pending major penalty proceeding, the proper course is to place the candidate’s assessment in a sealed cover for decision after conclusion of the inquiry.

The petitioner, a Junior Superintendent in the Land Revenue Department, was included in the select list for promotion to the post of Tahsildar in accordance with the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR). His inclusion in the list reflected fulfilment of eligibility criteria and absence of disqualification on the date of selection.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Cost Direction In NI Act Settlement Appeal ; Damodar S. Prabhu Cost-For-Compounding Guidelines Cannot Be Regarded As A Binding Precedent

Subsequently, a charge memo dated 18.03.2025 was issued alleging procedural lapses in file processing. The petitioner submitted a reply on 04.04.2025 denying the allegations. While this explanation remained pending and without any finding of guilt, the promotion order dated 13.06.2025 was issued, in which his name was excluded solely on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the promotion order to the extent it excluded him, a declaration that pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated after publication of the select list could not operate as a disqualification, and a direction to include him in the promotion list or consider him provisionally subject to the disciplinary proceedings.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, relying on Note (iii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II KS&SSR, which bars promotion of officers against whom major penalty proceedings are pending. The Tribunal also referred to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman to state that promotion can be kept in abeyance pending disciplinary action.

The petitioner challenged this dismissal before the High Court, contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the sealed cover procedure mandated under K.V. Jankiraman and that the authorities ought to have adopted that method instead of outright exclusion. The State maintained that no interference was warranted.

The Court examined the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, recording that “the power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum” and that this jurisdiction cannot be exercised “to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction.”

It noted that interference is permissible only where the order is passed in “grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.” The Court recorded that unless the lower forum’s reasoning is “palpably perverse or patently unreasonable” or contrary to settled law, intervention is unwarranted.

The Court referred to the pleadings and observed that the petitioner was excluded from the promotion list because “the charge memo dated 18.03.2025 was issued to him by which the departmental proceedings were initiated for the imposition of a major penalty.” It noted the Tribunal’s reliance on Note (iii) to Rule 28(b)(i)(7), which states that officers against whom major penalty proceedings are pending “shall not be promoted on the basis of their inclusion in the select list until they are fully exonerated of the charges against them.”

The Court reproduced the principles from K.V. Jankiraman, including the statement that “the sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued.” It recorded that the Tribunal referred to this principle but dismissed the application without directing adoption of the sealed cover procedure.

The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Dinesh Singh, noting the observation that “as per this procedure, the candidate is allowed to participate in the merit-based selection process, and the results of such candidate’s selection is kept in a sealed cover and opened… after the proceedings in question are over.”

After reviewing these principles, the Court stated that the correct course in such situations is the sealed cover procedure, and recorded that the Tribunal “failed to consider this pleadings in the original application.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds NCC’s Present Gender-Based Enrollment Scheme; Transgender Exclusion Not Unconstitutional, Centre Directed To Review Law For Inclusivity

The Court stated: “we find that the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the 2nd respondent has to be directed to adopt the sealed cover procedure, as far as the claim of promotion raised by the petitioner.”

“This original petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2025, passed by the Tribunal in O.A(EKM)No.909 of 2025 and the original application is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to undertake the sealed cover procedure by placing the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Tahsildar, before the Departmental Promotion Committee.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Smt. A.V. Indira, Shri. Anandhu Satheesh, Smt. Sreedevi S.
For the Respondents: Smt. Mary Beena Joseph, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Vinod E V Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:85490
Case Number: OP(KAT) No. 327 of 2025
Bench: Justice Anil K. Narendran, Justice Muralee Krishna S.