IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16851 of 2008(F) PETITIONERS: 1. M.R.UNNIKRISHNAN, PUZHAVOOR RAJASEKHARA VILASAM, NANDIATTUKUNNAM, N.PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PHARMACIST GRADE II, AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, ALUVA. 2. V.J.MATHEWS, DOOR NO.19/1012-A, VALOORAN HOUSE, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PHARMACIST GRADE II, AYURVEDA DISPENSARY, ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.B.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (D) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, AROGYA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (ISM), ERNAKULAM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.16851 of 2008 F ------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Pharmacist Grade-II in the Department of Indigenous Medicine. Promotion in the said service is made as per the Special Rules for the Kerala Indigenous Medicine Subordinate Service Rules, 1967. The Special Rules provide for promotion of Attenders to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II, prior to 16.6.1986 when the Rules were amended as per Ext.P2. The eligibility was completion of SSLC. A training for a period of 3 months is also prescribed by Ext.P2. When Ext.P2 was amended, the qualification prescribed is pass in SSLC. The training period is enhanced from 3 months to one year. According to the petitioners, though they were promoted as Pharmacist Grade-II on 13.8.1987 and 1.1.1990 respectively, they should be treated as having been promoted prior to 16.6.1986 and W.P.(C).NO.16851/08 :: 2 :: therefore, they should not be required to undergo training in excess of a period of three months. Apparently, they were deputed for training for a period of one year in terms of the Special Rules. They had sought for exemption therefrom by Exts.P10 and P11. But that has not been considered by the Director. They had approached this court earlier and by Ext.P16 judgment, this court had directed the Director of Indian Systems of Medicine, to consider the petitioners' applications, Exts.P8 and P9 in the said writ petition, by which they had sought for exemption from undergoing training for a period of one year. Pursuant to Ext.P16 judgment, the request made by the petitioners has been considered and rejected under Ext.P17 order, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I have perused Ext.P17 also. W.P.(C).NO.16851/08 :: 3 :: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that they should be treated as having been promoted against the vacancies in the post of Pharmacist Grade-II, which had arisen prior to 16.6.1986, the date of amendment of the Special Rules as per Ext.P2 and therefore, the requirement as per the pre-amended Rules alone will apply to the petitioners. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention. Even according to the petitioners, they were actually promoted with effect from 13.8.1987 and 1.1.1990 respectively, going by the averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition. The period of training stood enhanced from 3 months to one year as per the amendment brought about by Ext.P2. Even assuming for arguments sake that the petitioners have been promoted against the vacancies in the post of Pharmacist Grade-II which had arisen prior to 16.6.1986, it does not follow as a consequence that they need not undergo training for a period of one year. The W.P.(C).NO.16851/08 :: 4 :: amendment of the Special Rules came into force on 16.6.1986. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were promoted only after 16.6.1986. They have received Higher Grade in the said post also. Moreover, the amended Rules have been implemented in such a manner that all persons are sent for training for a period of one year. The training now contemplated by the Rules is for a period of one year as such and if that be so, it cannot be said that the Rules must be applied in such a manner that the petitioners need undergo training only for a period of 3 months. There is yet another reason why I am unable to accept this contention. Even when the petitioners had approached this court earlier, as evidenced by Ext.P16 judgment, their principal claim was one for exemption from training and a claim was made in this regard before the Director. It is accordingly that I directed the Director to consider Exts.P8 and P9 therein, which are Exts.P10 and P11 in this writ W.P.(C).NO.16851/08 :: 5 :: petition. The petitioners have essentially sought for exemption from the application of the amended Rules in their request. 4. A reading of Ext.P17 order will show that valid reasons have been given to reject the request of the petitioners. It is found therein that the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Pharmacist Grade-II only after the amended Rules were enforced. Moreover, apparently the petitioners require such training if they have to discharge the duties of Pharmacist Grade-II. 5. In my view, there is no error of jurisdiction or any illegality in the stand taken by the Director in Ext.P17. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. But, I make it clear that if the petitioners approach the Government for relaxation of the Rules by invoking Rule 39 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, the same shall be considered W.P.(C).NO.16851/08 :: 6 :: independent of Ext.P17. The Government may bear in mind the fact that the petitioners are approaching retirement and therefore, there might be some difficulty in undergoing training for a period of one year. I make it clear that I have only considered the correctness of Ext.P17 and if the petitioners approach the Government, as aforementioned, within a period of two weeks from today, the Government shall take steps thereon within a period of three weeks thereafter, after hearing the petitioners. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge