IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6389 of 2010(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRINCIPAL.DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SANCTIONING AUTHORITY/ CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OHOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 6389 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is an educational agency running a homeopathic medical college. A hospital is attached to the college, which is a statutory requirement for being recognised by the Homeopathy Council. The 1st petitioner has signed a direct payment agreement with the Government for payment of salary to their staff. But, for the purpose of staff fixation, the Government refuse to take into account the staff of the hospital, on the ground that only the college is covered by the direct payment agreement. According to the petitioners, the Government have taken a policy decision to include the hospital also as part of the college for the purpose of direct payment agreement. Their grievance in this writ petition is that that decision is not being implemented. 2. Unfortunately for the petitioners, the petitioners had embarked on a litigation in the matter, which resulted in Ext.P14 judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.1152 and 1153 of 2009 filed by the State of Kerala, wherein the Supreme Court upheld the stand of the Government that the hospital cannot be included as part of the college for the purpose of direct payment agreement. The Supreme Court rendered that decision on the ground 2 that that is a policy decision of the Government and the Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the Government. The petitioners now contend that in fact the Government had taken a policy decision to include hospital also as part of the college for the purpose of direct payment system. Whatever that be, in so far as Ext.P14 judgment of the Supreme Court governs the filed, the petitioners' remedy lies in seeking review of that judgment before the Supreme Court or to persuade the Government to take appropriate decision in accordance with the policy decision stated to have been taken in their favour by the Government in the matter. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge