Administrative Law

Kesavan Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala

AIR 1961 Ker 23

Facts

A student, Saigal, sought exemption from the minimum age requirement for an English School Leaving Certificate.
The rule allowed the Director to grant exemption in deserving cases.
The Director refused because the student’s age deficiency was more than two years.
The refusal was based on an internal policy that no exemption would be granted if age deficiency exceeded two years.

Whether an authority can refuse to exercise discretion by applying a rigid self-made policy.

An authority may frame a policy to guide discretion.
But it cannot treat that policy as an invariable rule.
Discretion must be exercised case by case, especially where the statute allows exemption in deserving cases.
If the authority disables itself from considering individual merits, it amounts to fettering of discretion.

The Director had power to grant exemption in deserving cases.
This meant he was required to examine whether Saigal’s case was exceptional or deserving.
The student had strong facts in his favour:
he had progressed academically;
he had passed earlier examinations;
his Headmaster recommended exemption;
he had already been selected for the public examination and paid the fee.
But the Director did not consider these individual merits.
He rejected the application only because the age deficiency was beyond two years.
The Court said this converted a discretionary power into a rigid rule.
The authority was allowed to have a policy, but the policy could not replace the actual exercise of discretion.
By refusing to look beyond the two-year limit, the Director effectively shut his mind to exceptional circumstances.
That is legally wrong because discretion exists precisely to deal with unusual cases.

The Kerala High Court set aside the Director’s refusal.
It directed the Director to reconsider the exemption request on merits, without being bound by the self-created two-year policy.
The case is important because it shows that an authority cannot say, “This is my policy, so I will not even consider your case.”
Use this case for: fettering of discretion by rigid policy.
Your PPT also uses this case for the principle that an internal rule limiting exemption to maximum two years’ age deficiency placed an undue fetter on discretion.