DR. PRAKASAN M.P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, who are members of the teaching faculty in Homeopathic Medical Colleges situated in the respondent No.1 - State of Kerala [For Short 'the State'], are aggrieved by the judgement dtd. 6/8/2010, passed by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam [In Writ Appeal No. 1338 of 2010], concurring with the judgement dtd. 19/7/2010, passed by the learned Single Judge [In Writ Petition (Civil) 13537 of 2010]. The relief prayed for by the appellants was for enhancing their age of retirement from 55 years to 60 years by extending the benefit of the Government Order [For short 'G.O'] dtd. 14/1/2010 [G.O.(MS) No.14/2010/H&FWD], which increased the retirement age of Doctors in the Medical category under the Medical Education Service from 55 years to 60 years with retrospective effect from 1/5/2009. The prayer made was not granted.

(2.) To put the issue raised in the instant case in the correct perspective, we may first refer to the relevant facts. The State issued a Government Order [G.O. (MS) No. 14/2010/H&FWD] dtd. 14/1/2010, recording inter-alia that there was a shortage of qualified and experienced medical faculties in several subjects in Government Medical Colleges in the State and that on account of the age of retirement of the faculty including medical doctors at 55 years, several departments were facing dearth of medical doctors which, was adversely affecting post graduate medical courses. Noting that at the National level, the retirement age of doctors in Medical Colleges was 65 years and retention of senior professors in service would help the State increase the number of post graduate seats as per the revised norms laid down by the Medical Council of India, the State ordered that :

(3.) Aggrieved by the exclusion of doctors/professors of Government Homeopathic Colleges from the purview of the captioned G.O. dtd. 14/1/2010, the appellants filed a writ petition [Writ Petition (C) No.10709 of 2010] in the High Court of Kerala praying inter alia for extension of the benefit of the said G.O. to Homeopathic Doctors working in Government Homeopathic Colleges. The said writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 29/3/2010 with a direction issued to the State to consider the pending representations of the appellants and pass an order within three months. Since the State did not take any decision on their representations, the appellants approached the High Court once again and filed another writ petition3, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dtd. 19/7/2010. Noting that the State Government did not amend Rule 60 (a) or 60 (c) Part (I) of the Kerala Service Rules [For short 'K.S. Rules'], the learned Single Judge held that the existing rule position as obtained from Rule 60(c) of the K.S. Rules, could not be ignored. It was also observed that the appellants had not challenged the G.O. dtd. 14/1/2010. Instead, they approached the Court seeking parity with those covered under the said G.O., by claiming that it ought to be extended to them as well so as to enable them to continue in service beyond the normal date of retirement, which was impermissible.