IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12894 of 2010(J) PETITIONER: --------------- B.SREEKUMAR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN HEALTH EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY MEDICINE MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN (1) SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO.15748 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.12894 OF 2010 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 23.2.2007. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.145/2000/H&FWD DATED 16.6.2000. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.7.2007 ISSUED BY THE UNDERSECRETARY. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.8.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.2233 OF 2004. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.9047 OF 2004. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.6563 OF 2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C). NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12894 of 2010, namely, B.Sreekumar, is working as Assistant Professor of Health Education, Department of Community Medicine, Medical College, Kottayam. The case of the petitioner is that with effect from 1.1.1996, the designation of the petitioner should have been changed as Senior Lecturer on the basis of Ext.P2 Government Order, G.O.(P) No.145/2000/H&FWD dated 16.6.2000. The petitioner contends that as per Ext.P2 Government Order, he should have been promoted as Assistant Professor with effect from 1.5.1996. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant Professor only on 2.7.2007, though Ext.P2 Government Order came into force with effect from 1.1.1996. Pointing out the grievance, the petitioner submitted representation to the Government. However, reply to the representation was given by the Director of Medical Education, as per Ext.P4 dated 4.8.2008. Ext.P4 reads as follows: “Inviting attention to the reference cited. I am to inform you that Government as per reference 2nd cited W.P.(C) NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 :: 2 :: has informed that the request of Sri.B.Sreekumar Assistant Professor of Health Education for Time Bound Cadre Promotion cannot be considered for the reasons that the benefit of Career Advancement promotion contained in the G.O.(P)145/2000/H&FWD. dated 16.6.2000 is applicable to teachers of Medical, Dental and Pharmaceutical Science College and the same is not applicable to teachers of Non-Medical category. The post of Sri.Sreekumar is also not re-designated as Senior Lecturer. The matter may be informed to him accordingly. The Service Book of Sri.B.Sreekumar is returned herewith. Kindly acknowledge receipt of the same.” 2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15748 of 2010, namely, Dr.J.Suhara Beevi, is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Community Medicine, Medical College, Kottayam. The grievance of Dr.J.Suhara Beevi is that though as per G.O.(P) No.145/2000/H&FWD dated 16.6.2000 (Ext.P1) the Government revised the scale of pay of teaching staff of the Medical Colleges with effect from 1.1.1996, the benefits were not conferred on the petitioner. It is also contended that the career advancement promotion provided in Ext.P1 was also not extended to the petitioner. According to her, she having acquired M.Phil and Ph.D, was entitled W.P.(C) NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 :: 3 :: to be promoted as Assistant Professor with effect from 22.10.2001 and also entitled to be promoted as Associate Professor from 22.10.2006. However, those benefits were also not given to the petitioner. Representations were submitted by the petitioner to the Director of Medical Education. The Director of Medical Education disposed of the representations, as per Ext.P4 order dated 30.9.2003. However, the claims put forward by the petitioner were not granted by the Director of Medical Education apparently on the ground that G.O.(P) No.145/2000/H&FWD dated 16.6.2000 does not apply to the Non-Medical categories. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that the entitlement of the petitioners for promotion with reference to the particular dates as claimed by the petitioners is disputed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue involved in the case is settled by the judgment in W.P. (C) No.2233 of 2004 dated 8.4.2009, wherein it was held as follows: “8. I have perused Ext.P1 Government Order and took the view that Ext.P1 is applicable to all teaching W.P.(C) NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 :: 4 :: staff irrespective of medical or non-medical Lecturers. Ext.P1 does not restrict its application to the Lecturers in clinical branch. Ext.P1 confers benefits to Lecturers in Dental, Medical and Pharmaceutical Science Colleges in Kerala. If Ext.P1 confers benefit to Lecturers irrespective of clinical branch or non-clinical branch, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits conferred by it. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible for time bound cadre promotion and all other benefits conferred vide Ext.P1 order. Taking into consideration Ext.P1 Government Order, Ext.P9 order is ex facie illegal and unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned orders, Exts.P3 and P9 are quashed. It is hereby declared that the petitioner is entitled to get all the benefits of Senior Lecturers in Ext.P1. It is also declared that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of time bound cadre promotion under Ext.P1 with effect from 1.1.1996 as Assistant Professor and 6/8/1999 as Associate Professor in Medico Sociology. There will be a direction that consequent orders shall be passed by the Government within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 4. Following the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2233 of 2004, W.P. (C) Nos.9047 of 2004 and 6563 of 2004 were disposed of by another learned single Judge. W.P.(C) NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 :: 5 :: 5. It is submitted that W.A.No.1021 of 2010 filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.2233 of 2004 was dismissed on the ground of delay. 6. In view of the settled legal position, the order passed by the Director of Medical Education does not survive. Though the petitioner has not prayed for a relief to quash the order passed by the Director of Medical Education, larger prayers were made in the Writ Petition for declaration of the rights of the petitioners on the basis of the Government Order, which the Director of Medical Education held as not applicable to the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the Director of Medical Education is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext.P4 in both the Writ Petitions are quashed. Though the order passed by the Director of Medical Education is quashed, which naturally would result in directing him to consider the matter afresh, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader that the W.P.(C) NOS.12894 & 15748 OF 2010 :: 6 :: authority to consider the grievance of the petitioners is the Government. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgments referred to above and the observations made above. The Government shall dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in the Writ Petitions. The petitioners shall produce copy of the respective Writ Petitions and copy of the relevant judgments as well as certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The petitioners would be entitled to file detailed representation before the first respondent pointing out all the relevant facts. The contentions put forward by the learned Government Pleader shall also be taken note of by the first respondent. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/