Dismissed

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018OP(KAT)/372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an administrative petition challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's dismissal of the petitioners' appeal against their termination. The court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the post of tutor was abolished by Central Regulations.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed upholding the lower Tribunal's order terminating the petitioners' service.

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

FRIDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1940 OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONERS/APPLICANTS:

¶8

1 DR. LEKSHMIPRAYA K.S W/O. HARILAL A.R, AGED 37 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF MATERIA MEDICA ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, 695019, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 29, ACHUTHAM, TEMPLE LANE, CHITTAZHA, VATTAPPARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695028.

¶9

2 DR.SHINEE T.JOHN, W/O.BIJU.B., AGED 49 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF CARE TAKING, REPRTORISATION ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695 019, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.72, TRRA, AMBALAMUKKU, KOWDIYAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003.

¶10

3 DR.PUNITHA.S., W/O.RAGHUNATH.J., AGED 37 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695 019, RESIDING AT TC 53/2658, VATTAVILA VEEDU, THOOKKUVILA, PAPANAMCODU P.O., THIRUVNANTHAOURAM695 018.

¶11

4 DR.DEEPA.R.S., W/O.SELVAN.P., AGED 39 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACY, ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 019, RESIDING AT 'DEEPAM', CHAVADI NADA VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 523.

¶12

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶13

¶14

5 DR.HITA RAJ, W/O.PRADEEP.K.R., AGED 36 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY, ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019, RESIDING AT TC 50/557, NANDHANAM, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

¶15

6 DR.VIJITH KUMAR.V., S/O.VINAYA KUMAR.G., AGED 39 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF ANATOMY, ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.140, B-BLOCK, NANDHINI GARDENS, WEST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 023.

¶16

7 DR.VELAYUDHAN NINEESHA NIRMALAN, W/O.RAKESH RAJENDRAN, AGED 34 YEARS, WORKING AS TUTOR IN DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY ON DAILY WAGE BASIS, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019, RESIDING AT 'SARADHI', RAVI NAGAR, C-8, PIPE LINE ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 023.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.SAJU JOHN

¶18

RESPONDENT/S:

¶19

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶20

2 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 019.

¶21

BY ADV. GP-SRI ANTONY MUKKATH.

¶22

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

C. T. Ravikumar, J.

¶27

The petitioners who were doctors working in Government Homeopathic Medical College,

¶28

Thiruvananthapuram on daily wage basis approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2179/2017 on being aggrieved by the order terminating them from service with effect from 08.11.2017. They contended that they were appointed as tutors in the year 2010-2011 after being subjected to a selection process. But at the same time, they would concede that their appointment was only on daily wage basis. The challenge against Annexure-A11 order was repelled by the Tribunal as per the impugned order and consequently, the Original Application was dismissed. It is in the said

¶29

circumstances, that the captioned original petition has been filed.

¶30

We have heard the learned counsel appearing

¶31

for the petitioners.

¶32

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶33

¶34

A scanning of the impugned order passed by

¶35

the Tribunal would reveal the pleadings of the respondents taken out to resist the claims and contentions of the petitioners, which were found

¶36

favour with the Tribunal. Essentially their contention is that, pursuant to the amendment to the special rules in tune with the Central Council of Homeopathy Regulations 2013, persons with Post Graduate qualification alone are qualified to teach in Homeopathic Medical Colleges. Admittedly, the petitioners are lacking Post Graduate qualification. It is also their precise case that the post of tutors against which the petitioners were engaged, were abolished. In such circumstances, it is also contended that there is absolutely no basis for the apprehension of the petitioners that they would be replaced with employment exchange hands lacking Post Graduate qualification. The Tribunal had upheld the contentions of the respondents that the post of tutor is no more in existence and therefore, there is absolutely no question of effecting any appointment,

¶37

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶38

¶39

either on provisional basis or on regular basis

¶40

against the post of tutor. The said aspect cannot be disputed in the light of the indisputable position obtained to the effect that the post of tutor was

¶41

abolished. The petitioners cannot be heard to contend

¶42

that despite the abolition of the said post they

¶43

should be engaged on daily wage basis as tutors. In the facts and circumstances obtained in this case, we

¶44

do not find any reason to hold that the order of the

¶45

Tribunal is infected with any illegality or

¶46

perverseness warranting an interference in exercise

¶47

of the powers of judicial review by this Court. The

¶48

learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the representation submitted by the petitioners in

¶49

pursuance of Annexure-A9 dated 03.08.2016 may be

¶50

directed to be considered. A perusal of the same would reveal that the petitioners are relying on the following recital in Annexure-A9 in Ext.P1 as the

¶51

foundation for the said contention.

¶52

“........ പപ . ജപ യയയോഗ്ᩆത ഇലയോ്ᩈ വരുടടെ യകയോൺടയോക❷⟧ നനിയമനനം സർകയോർ

¶53

അനുമതനിയനിലയോടത നടെ്ᩈ രുടതന❷⟧ അറനിയനിച❷⟧ ടകയോളന.”

¶54

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶55

¶56

A perusal of the said recital, may at first blush, would indicate that such appointment is permissible with the permission of the Government. We are of the considered view that the said recital

¶57

in Annexure-A9 in Ext.P1 and the pleadings of the respondents in the counter affidavit which were accepted by the Tribunal, cannot co-exist. The precise case before the Tribunal is that the post of tutor is abolished and therefore there is absolutely no question of effecting appointment against the said post. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. In such circumstances, this original petition must fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.T.RAVIKUMAR

JUDGE

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE

avs

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶66

¶67

APPENDIX

¶68

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶69

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.2179/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 16.11.2017 IN O.A.2179/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE M.A.3359/2017 IN O.A.2179/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2017 IN O.A.(EKM) 2611/20-17 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 28.11.2017 IN O.A.2179/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.12.2017 IN OP(KAT)484/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.12.2017 IN OP(KAT)499/2017-Z OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 05.03.2018 FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN O.A.2179/2017.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN O.A.2179/2017.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF M.A.NO.759/2018 IN O.A.NO/.2179/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.

¶70

OP(KAT).No. 372 of 2018

¶71

¶72

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2018 IN O.A.2179/2017 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.

¶73

avs //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Lekshmipraya K.S v. the State of Kerala

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

Union of India Vs Jansiram Meena

Sreeja K K Vs Secrtary, Sreekandapuram Municipality

A.M.Basheer Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala, Vs K. Sudhakara Bhat

Vijnani P.S., Vs the Chief Manager

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.J.Abraham