IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1566 of 2010()
1. DR.K.V.VENUGOPALAN,VICE PRINCIPAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESSENTEDBY THE
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,KERALA AYURVEDIC
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :22/11/2010
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. No.1566 of 2010 With
W.A. No.1499 of 2010 &
W.A. No.1590 of 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
A.K.BASHEER , J
Appellants are teachers working in Government and
aided Ayurveda Colleges in the state of Kerala. They are
governed by Kerala State Ayurveda Medical Education
(Teaching) Services Special Rules 2007.
2. It is beyond controversy that these teachers are due
to retire at the age of 55 as stipulated in Rule 60(a) of Part I
of Kerala Services Rules. Their grievance is that, the
Government has meted out a discriminatory treatment
towards them, in as much as they are not being allowed to
continue in service till the age of 60 as in the case of their
counter parts in Modern Medicine.
3. The appellants approached the learned single judge,
with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
such other appropriate writ order or direction to the
W.A. No.1566 /2010 With
W.A. No.1499/2010 &
W.A. No.1590/2010
2
government to prescribe and grant the same benefits to
them also as are extended to their counter parts in Modern
Medicine as revealed from Ext.P2 order of the Government.
4. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions
filed by the appellants, holding that it was primarily and
essentially a policy decision of the government and
therefore the court could not intervene. As regards the plea
of discriminatory treatment. The learned single judge held
that there was no “discrimination” as alleged.
5. These appeals have been filed against the common
judgment passed by the learned single judge in the three
writ petitions.
6. When these cases were taken up for consideration,
learned senior Government pleader invited our attention to
the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in
Prakasan v. State of Kerala 2010 (4) KLT 281. The
above case related to a similar challenge raised by the
teachers of Homeo Medical Colleges. Learned senior
W.A. No.1566 /2010 With
W.A. No.1499/2010 &
W.A. No.1590/2010
3
Government Pleader points out that, two cases in the
reported judgment arose from the very same common
judgment, which is the subject matter of these appeals. The
Division Bench while confirming the view taken by the
learned single judge held thus.
7. “There is nothing wrong in Government extending
the retirement age of teachers in Medical Colleges teaching
Modern Medicine, if there is dearth for qualified people for
appointment as teachers in the lower levels to succeed the
retiring people. Retirement age is essentially a matter of
policy of the Government and courts normally have no role
in fixing the same”.
8. Since it was brought to our notice that, a
representation submitted by teachers of Ayurveda Colleges
like the appellants was pending consideration before the
Government, we directed the learned Government Pleader
to get instructions in the matter particularly with reference
to the communication reportedly sent by the Central
W.A. No.1566 /2010 With
W.A. No.1499/2010 &
W.A. No.1590/2010
4
Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi to all State
Governments in the country including the state of Kerala.
In this communication, dated February 22, 2010, the State
Governments were informed that the Central Council had
considered the lack of availability of teaching staff in the
medical institutions and decided to “consider the eligibility
of teaching staff for Ayurveda, Unani and Sidha up to 65
years”. The Central Council in the above communication
suggested that, enhancement of the age of retirement of
teachers of Ayurveda, Unani etc. up to 65 can be considered
in the light of the above decision taken by the council.
9. Learned senior Government Pleader submits that
the government does not consider it, necessary to enhance
the retirement age of Ayurveda / Homeo Doctors at present
as there is no dearth of qualified hands.
10. Learned senior Government Pleader has made
available the communication dated November 16, 2010
received by him from the Secretary to Health and Family
W.A. No.1566 /2010 With
W.A. No.1499/2010 &
W.A. No.1590/2010
5
Welfare (D) Department in the Government of Kerala for
our perusal.
11. In that view of the matter, and also in view of
decision in Prakasan v. State of Kerala 2010 (4) KLT
281 (Supra), we do not find any reason to entertain these
writ appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE
P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE
ss/-