IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 20284 of 2009(E)
1. DR.T.O.NAVAS, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.20284 of 2009 (E)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 30th day of November, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is mainly against
Clauses 4 & 5 of the Appendix to Ext.P1, the Kerala Health Services
(Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2005. The petitioner is also
challenging Exts.P6 & P7, the final seniority list and the provisional
list prepared for placement of Medical Officers in the speciality
cadre.
2. The premise on which this writ petition is filed is that by
virtue of Clauses 4 & 5, and the point system that is adopted
therein, the Diploma holders will get a march over Post Graduate
Degree holders and as a result thereof, the very object of
introducing the speciality cadre to provide better medical care to the
general public itself is defeated.
3. From the pleadings it would appear that even after
Exts.P6 & P7 were published, by Ext.R1(a) dated 16/10/2009, the
Government have again directed the Director of Health Services to
WP(C) No.20284/2009
-2-
invite fresh options from Medical Officers, who want to exercise
options as contemplated in Ext.P1 Special Rules. This necessarily
means that neither Ext.P6, the final seniority list, nor Ext.P7, the
provisional list prepared for placement, has attained finality for the
reason that as a consequence of Ext.R1(a), necessarily, the
Government will have to prepare a fresh seniority list and also a list
for placement into the speciality cadre. In such circumstances, it is
premature for the petitioner to contend that as a result of Clauses 4
& 5 of Ext.P1 Special Rules, the Diploma holders will get a march
over the Degree holders like him. That apart, Exts.P6 and P7 also
lack in material particulars such as, qualification, date of acquisition
etc. in order to ascertain whether Diploma holders are at an
advantageous position, as contended by the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore urged
that the particulars in the seniority list published are too inadequate
to enable the aggrieved persons like the petitioners to raise even
objection against the list, on the ground that the diploma holders
got a march over them. This according to the petitioner is for want
of the Post Graduate Degree / Diploma that the persons mentioned
WP(C) No.20284/2009
-3-
in the seniority list and the list prepared for placement possess.
The petitioner also points out that these lists also do not include the
date of acquisition of the qualification by these persons, in order to
ascertain the correctness of the points awarded.
5. Having gone through Exts.P6 & P7, and also in view of
the provisions contained in the Special Rules, I am inclined to think
that the petitioner is justified in the grievance raised. Therefore, as
and when seniority list or list for placement is again published,
necessarily, the respondents shall incorporate the details of the
qualification, viz. Post Graduate Degree or Diploma as the case may
be, possessed by the Medical Officers, whose names are included in
the list. In addition to the qualification they possess, the
respondents also shall indicate the date on which the particular
person has acquired the said qualification.
6. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
respondents to incorporate the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma and
the date on which the same has been acquired by the persons,
whose names figure in the seniority list and also the list for
placement, as and when such lists are published.
WP(C) No.20284/2009
-4-
It is made clear that this Court has not decided on the merits
of the contentions raised by the writ petitioner against Clauses 4 &
5 of Ext.P1 Special Rules and these contentions are left open.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg