Dismissed

Dr.a.S.Rajendra Babu v. Dr.T.T.Krishnakumar

Kerala HC29 Feb 2016WA/724/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed these writ appeals referred to earlier judgments regarding Ayurveda medical officer promotions. It observed that since the petitioners and appellants had reached the age of superannuation, the review exercise directed previously does not require observation at this stage without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of Writ Appeals with observation that the directed review of promotions requires no observation due to superannuation of parties.

Dr.a.S.Rajendra Babu Vs Dr.T.T.Krishnakumar — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶5

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 724 of 2006 (C)

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.29134/2003 DATED 13-02-2006.

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 21 TO 24::

¶9

1. DR.A.S. RAJENDRA BABU,

¶10

NOW DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (ISM), PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶11

DR.C.R. RAVI, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

¶13

¶14

DR.VALSALA KUMARI,

¶15

NOW DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

¶17

DR.V.T. MUKUNDAN, NOW DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM.

¶18

DR.K.J. RADHAMANI AMMA, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (ISM), IDUKKI.

¶19

¶20

DR.S.J. VASUKUMARI, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (ISM), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

¶22

DR.E. SHABANA, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (ISM), KOLLAM.

¶23

¶24

DR.SHEIK NUJRDEEN SAHIB, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, NEDUMPANA, KOLLAM.

¶25

¶26

*9. DR.D. LISSAMMA MATHEW, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVT. AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, UDAYAMPEROOR. (STRUCK OUT)

¶27

10. DR.A. SURESH, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (AYURVEDA), DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶28

WA.No. 724 of 2006 ©

¶29

11. KERALA STATE GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, REG. NO.11/1957, THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, DR.S. SASIKUMAR.

¶30

*** NAME OF 9TH RESPONDENT STRUCK OUT FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED 29/01/2010 IN I.A. NO.56/2010.**

¶31

BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN.

¶32

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3, 8, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19 AND 20:

¶33

1. DR.T.T. KRISHNAKUMAR, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (SPECIALIST), GOVT. AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, MAVELIKKARA.

¶34

2. DR.O. SREENIVASAN, SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER (SPECIALIST), GOVERNMENT VISHA VAIDYA HOSPITAL, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR.

¶35

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶36

4. THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (HIGHER), REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER & SECRETARY TO GOVT., HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶37

5. THE DIRECTOR OF INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶38

6. DR.E. KUMARAN NAMBOODIRI, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD.

¶39

7. DR.K. MURALI, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVT. AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA.

¶40

8. DR.ALPHONSAMMA GEORGE, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (AYURVEDA), DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, VARKALA.

¶41

WA.No. 724 of 2006 (C)

¶42

9. DR.P.K. KRISHNAN NAIR, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶43

10. DR. K.I. AUGUSTINE, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (AYURVEDA), GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶44

11. DR.K.V. SOMASUNDARAM, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER (AYURVEDA), GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, CHOONDAL,THRISSUR.

¶45

12. DR.M.K. NANOO, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, KANNUR.

¶46

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUGATHAN, SMT.R.SEEMA. R3 TO R5 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL.

¶47

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-02-2016, ALONG WITH W.A. NO.746 OF 2006 AND W.A. NO.420 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶48

rs.

¶49

WA.No. 724 of 2006 (C)

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

¶52

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶53

ANNEXURE I COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/06/2006 TO THE GOVERNMENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &

¶58

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶59

*** * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.Nos.724 & 746 of 2006

¶60

and 420 of 2008

¶61

Dated this the 29^th day of February 2016

¶62

J U D G M E N T

¶63

Shaffique,J

¶64

These appeals are filed by third parties as well as respondents in the writ petition. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had observed that the petitioners ought to have been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee against vacancies that had arisen in the year 2001 in the post of Chief Medical Officer and only in their absence respondents 4 to 20 could have been considered. Accordingly, direction has been issued as under:

¶65

“14. Ext.P3 order has been challenged by two petitioners whereas as per Exts.P7 and P8 about 14 persons have been promoted. It may not therefore be proper or fair to straight away set aside the promotion of all those persons including the respondents herein. However, it is necessary that promotions made as per Exts.P7 and P8 are reviewed by the respondents 1 and 2,

¶66

W.A.Nos.724&746 of 2006

¶67

& 420 of 2008

¶68

¶69

immediately after the publication of the select list as directed above. Appropriate orders shall be passed transfer appointing persons who would be found eligible to be included in the select list for the year 2001 prepared in accordance with Rule 3 (b) of the Special Rules. The review of orders appointing respondents 4 to 20 shall be done within one month of the publication of the select list. Petitioners, if found eligible to be included in the select list shall be appointed from the date on which Ext.P7 was issued. They shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with law. In the meantime the petitioners shall be provisionally promoted as Chief Medical Officer (Ayurveda) against the next arising vacancies.”

¶70

In the writ appeals, an interim order had been granted by this Court on 06/04/2006 directing not to revert the appellants from the post held by them. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioners that all the parties have since retired from service and they had superannuated in the promotion post itself.

¶71

Learned Senior Government Pleader, however, would submit that the State is entitled to implement the directions

¶72

W.A.Nos.724&746 of 2006

¶73

& 420 of 2008 3

¶74

issued since there were other claims during the subsequent years.

¶75

We do not think that we should go into such details, as matters stand now. Since the writ petitioners and the appellants herein had reached the age of superannuation, we do not think that the exercise, as directed to be carried out by the learned Single Judge, requires to be observed at this stage. Hence, without expressing any opinion on merits on the claim made by the State Government, the writ appeals are dismissed with the above observation.

¶76

(sd/-)

¶77

(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE) (sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶78

True Copy PA to Judge

¶79

jsr/01/03/16

Dr.a.S.Rajendra Babu v. Dr.T.T.Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.a.S.Rajendra Babu v. Dr.T.T.Krishnakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhakrishnan Vs Sameer

Sreenivas.P Vs C.P.Ramaraja Prema Prasad

C.N.Sathy & Another Vs v.K.Mahanudevan & Others

Shammy Thilakan Vs v.R.Raju

Alphonsa v Vs Dr.Gireesh Cholayil

M.R.Tourist Home Vs Dr W R Reddy