IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WA.No. 1566 of 2010() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13644/2010 Dated 19/07/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------- DR.K.V.VENUGOPALAN,VICE PRINCIPAL VAIDYARATNAM P.S.WARRIER AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KOTTAKKAL,EDANIKKODE(PO),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, RESIDING ATG "INDIEEVAROM",KARIVELLUR(PO), KARIVELLUR VILLAGE,TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESSENTEDBY THE SECRETARY,HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,KERALA AYURVEDIC STUDIES AND RESEARCH SOCIETY,KOTTAKKAL (PO), EADNIKODE 676 501,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1499 OF 2010 WA NO. 1590 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------------- W.A. No.1566 of 2010 With W.A. No.1499 of 2010 & W.A. No.1590 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22 nd day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT A.K.BASHEER , J Appellants are teachers working in Government and aided Ayurveda Colleges in the state of Kerala. They are governed by Kerala State Ayurveda Medical Education (Teaching) Services Special Rules 2007. 2. It is beyond controversy that these teachers are due to retire at the age of 55 as stipulated in Rule 60(a) of Part I of Kerala Services Rules. Their grievance is that, the Government has meted out a discriminatory treatment towards them, in as much as they are not being allowed to continue in service till the age of 60 as in the case of their counter parts in Modern Medicine. 3. The appellants approached the learned single judge, with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other appropriate writ order or direction to the W.A. No.1566 /2010 With W.A. No.1499/2010 & W.A. No.1590/2010 2 government to prescribe and grant the same benefits to them also as are extended to their counter parts in Modern Medicine as revealed from Ext.P2 order of the Government. 4. The learned single judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants, holding that it was primarily and essentially a policy decision of the government and therefore the court could not intervene. As regards the plea of discriminatory treatment. The learned single judge held that there was no “discrimination” as alleged. 5. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment passed by the learned single judge in the three writ petitions. 6. When these cases were taken up for consideration, learned senior Government pleader invited our attention to the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in Prakasan v. State of Kerala 2010 (4) KLT 281. The above case related to a similar challenge raised by the teachers of Homeo Medical Colleges. Learned senior W.A. No.1566 /2010 With W.A. No.1499/2010 & W.A. No.1590/2010 3 Government Pleader points out that, two cases in the reported judgment arose from the very same common judgment, which is the subject matter of these appeals. The Division Bench while confirming the view taken by the learned single judge held thus. 7. “There is nothing wrong in Government extending the retirement age of teachers in Medical Colleges teaching Modern Medicine, if there is dearth for qualified people for appointment as teachers in the lower levels to succeed the retiring people. Retirement age is essentially a matter of policy of the Government and courts normally have no role in fixing the same”. 8. Since it was brought to our notice that, a representation submitted by teachers of Ayurveda Colleges like the appellants was pending consideration before the Government, we directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter particularly with reference to the communication reportedly sent by the Central W.A. No.1566 /2010 With W.A. No.1499/2010 & W.A. No.1590/2010 4 Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi to all State Governments in the country including the state of Kerala. In this communication, dated February 22, 2010, the State Governments were informed that the Central Council had considered the lack of availability of teaching staff in the medical institutions and decided to “consider the eligibility of teaching staff for Ayurveda, Unani and Sidha up to 65 years”. The Central Council in the above communication suggested that, enhancement of the age of retirement of teachers of Ayurveda, Unani etc. up to 65 can be considered in the light of the above decision taken by the council. 9. Learned senior Government Pleader submits that the government does not consider it, necessary to enhance the retirement age of Ayurveda / Homeo Doctors at present as there is no dearth of qualified hands. 10. Learned senior Government Pleader has made available the communication dated November 16, 2010 received by him from the Secretary to Health and Family W.A. No.1566 /2010 With W.A. No.1499/2010 & W.A. No.1590/2010 5 Welfare (D) Department in the Government of Kerala for our perusal. 11. In that view of the matter, and also in view of decision in Prakasan v. State of Kerala 2010 (4) KLT 281 (Supra), we do not find any reason to entertain these writ appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ss/-