IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 4640 of 2006(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR. M.G.RAMACHANDRAN, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SALAKYATHANTRAM, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THAIKKATTUSSERY-680 322. BY MR.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,CALICUT UNIVERSITY PO THENHIPPALAM. 3. THE MANAGER, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THAIKKATTUSSERY-680 322. 4. DR. P.P.RAGHAVAN, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF SALAKYATHANTRAM, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THAIKKATTUSSERY-680 322. ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED. 5. DR.V.P.SATHEESAN NAMBIAR, AGED 48 YEARS, SR.DR.V.P.NAMBIAR, READER, VAIDYARATHAN AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THAIKKATTUSSERY, THRISSUR 680 322. W.P.(C) NO.4640/2006 6 DR. T.SREEKUMAR, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) SRI.V.S.MENON, READER, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THAIKKATTUSSERY, THRISSUR 680 322. ADDL. RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 23.3.06 IN IA.4.05.06. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED. 7. DR.K.M.PARAMESWARA CHAKIYAR, AGED 52 YEARS, LECTURER, SAMINITHA SIDHANTHA DEPARTMENT, VAIDYA RETNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR. ADDL. 7TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 11.01.06 IN IA. 1380/06. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.DILIP MOHAN R2 BY ADV. MR.E.S.ASHRAF, SC CALICUT UNIVERSITY R3 BY MR.K.R.B.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE R4 BY ADVS. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED, MR.K.E.HAMZA ADDL.R5, 6 & 7 BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. MR.K.A.MANZOOR ALI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.4640/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 6.5.85. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15.6.88 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P3:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 31.01.90 ISSUED BY TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 10.2.93 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.7.96 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA. 170/96 DTD. 16.9.96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23.10.96 ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.3.96 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 30.5.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE OPTION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 4.1.01 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.5.02 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14.2.05 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 26.5.03 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.6.04 IN WPC. 18843/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P15:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HEARING HELD ON 5.11.04 BY THE SYNDICATE OF THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY. P16:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 6.11.04 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P17:- COPY OF THE REVISION PEITION DTD. 10.5.05 FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT. P18:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.6.05 IN WPC. 36089/04 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P19:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2.2.06 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT . W.P.(C) NO.4640/2006 P20:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 11.1.05 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. P21:- COPY OF THE SELECT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA AS PER NOTICE DTD. 3.1.03. P22:- COPY OF THE ORDER G.O. DTD. 15.5.03 ISSUED BY THE GOVT. P23:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 22.7.99 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 11157/04 DTD. 2.2.06. R4(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.A1/1007/90/VAC-2 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 1.7.96. R4(b):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.A1/1627/2000 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT 30.5.2000. R4(c):- COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 6.6.03. R4(d):- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 7.7.05 R4(e):- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.25615/D3/03/H&FWD OF THE GOVERNMENT DT. 3.1.04. R4(f):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 10.6.04. R4(g):- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3-20/91-AY OF THE CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE DT. 3.6.91. R4(h):- COPY OF THE F.NO.3-20/96/AY OF FO. DT. 29.3.96. R5(a):- COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 20.10.86. R5(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 3.6.91. R5(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29.3.96. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.4640 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition challenges Ext.P19 order of the Government, whereby the petitioner's promotion as Professor in the Department of Salakyathantra was set aside by the Government on a petition filed by the 4th respondent, which petition was directed to be considered by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C).No. 36089/2004, on the ground that the introduction of 13+1 Department System as per the norms of the Central Council has not been sanctioned by the Government. Ext.P19 order was under challenge in a batch of writ petitions, viz., 20956/2006 and connected cases. Those writ petitions were allowed by me by judgment dated 28.7.2009 holding that the Government was duty bound to sanction 13+1 Department System in the colleges with effect from 1.7.2000. Accordingly, I quashed the very same order in those writ petitions. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the 4th respondent has already left the services of the 3rd respondent and, therefore, his claim also does not survive. Of course the learned counsel for the additional 5th respondent raises a claim for preference in promotion to the petitioner. But it is not disputed before me that as per the norms and statutes of the Calicut University and the Central Council, the 5th respondent did not W.P.C.4640/06 2 possess the requisite qualifications as on the date of arising of the vacancy. That being so, they cannot sustain any claim as against the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is allowed in terms of my judgment in W.P.(C).No. 20956/2006 and connected cases. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge