The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal was justified in refusing a request to treat publication of case documents through Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) candidate profiles as valid service of notice. The Court dismissed a petition filed by candidates challenging an interim order of the Tribunal in a recruitment dispute relating to the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II).
Background of the Case
The petition arose from proceedings pending before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal concerning recruitment to the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II) in the Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare Department.
The applicants before the Tribunal questioned certain eligibility conditions in the recruitment notification and sought changes to the ranked list. During the proceedings, they also requested that the Tribunal permit the matter to proceed without serving notice on every affected candidate. Alternatively, they asked for the Kerala Public Service Commission to upload the original application, interim orders and a hyperlink on the individual PSC dashboards of candidates, treating that exercise as valid service of notice.
The Tribunal rejected these requests on February 12, 2026. The applicants then challenged that order before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. examined the provisions of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2010 governing service of notices.
The Court held that the Rules do not permit service of notice by directing the Public Service Commission to publish the pleadings and orders on its website or through candidates' online profiles.
The Bench observed,
“The Tribunal cannot effect service of notices and processes to the respondents... by directing the Public Service Commission to publish in their website the PDF of the original application, the PDF of the interim orders... and then treat the publication of the same as completion of service of notices and processes.”
The Court further explained that where numerous persons are directly affected, Rule 4B of the Tribunal Rules provides a specific mechanism. With the Tribunal's permission, one or more affected persons may be impleaded to represent the larger group, while notice can be issued either personally or through public advertisement.
According to the Bench, since no such application under Rule 4B had been pursued in the manner contemplated by the Rules, the Tribunal could not bypass the statutory requirements regarding service of notice.
Decision
Finding no legal error in the Tribunal's approach, the High Court declined to interfere with its order.
The Bench concluded that the Tribunal had rightly refused the reliefs sought by the applicants and dismissed the original petition, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed.
Case Details
Case Title: Henna P.K. & Others v. State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: O.P.(KAT) No. 93 of 2026
Judge: Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S.
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
