IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2789 of 2009 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12556/2008 Dated 20/03/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/3RD PARTY APPELLANTS: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAKHESH.A.M,, S/O.MR.ARJUNAN.C., `ARAMAM', PAZHAYAKADA, THIRUPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.M.RAFEEQUE, S/O.MUHAMED HANAPHY PUTHANVEETTIL HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. JEEMON.B.R., S/O.B.S.RAGHAVAN, BLAPPUTTIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.A.K.B.SADBHAVANA MISSION TRUST, SARADHA HEALTH CENTRE, KOYILANDY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGESR DR.SANU JOHN KOVOOR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.A.ELIAS. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV.SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH R2 & R3 BY SR.GOVERMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WA NO.2790 OF 2009 ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. These two writ appeals are directed against the common judgment in W.P.(C) No.12556 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.28845 of 2008. 2. Appellants were not parties to the above two petitions which were filed respectively by the management of an unaided Educational institution and the students who underwent the Nurse- cum-Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) course in that institution during 2007-08. 3. The grievance of the management was that the Government was refusing to enter into the bilateral agreement as agreed between them. The management had started the course and admitted students on the strength of the assurance given by the W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 2 - Government and in terms of the conditions stipulated in this regard. However, the Government due to some inexplicable reasons refused to execute the agreement with the result the students who completed the course were left in the lurch. The Government did not conduct the examination for those students. Hence the two writ petitions. 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petitions directing the Government to enter into necessary agreement with the management if it had not already been done so, and to finalise the other formalities and conduct the examination within four weeks from the date of execution of the agreement for those students who completed their course in 2008 itself. 5. The grievance of the appellants who are undergoing the course in Nurse-cum-Pharmacist (Homoeopathy) in Government Homoeo Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram as in-service candidates is that the learned Single Judge has given legal sanctity to the course conducted by the management without obtaining prior W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 3 - permission from the Government. In fact the course conducted by the management without entering into an agreement in this regard was unauthorised. The Government had taken such a specific contention in its counter affidavit. According to the appellants the course of study, if any, completed by the students/respondents is of no avail to them since the very conduct of the course was without authority or sanction of the Government and apparently against the orders issued by the Government in this regard. The learned Judge therefore ought not to have directed the Government to condone the contumacious conduct of the management. The prayer is to set aside the impugned judgment and restrain the Government from conducting the examination and declaring the results. 6. We do not propose to delve deep into the various contentions raised by the appellants in these two appeals. It is the admitted position that Government has already conducted examination for the benefit of these students as directed by the Court. What W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 4 - remains is only publication of the result. However, it is pertinent to note that the heartburn or grievance of the appellants appears to be that if the respondents/students are allowed to obtain their Course certificate immediately after publication of results, it will adversely affect their job prospects. 7. Indisputably the respondents-students had completed their course in July, 2008 itself. However, it appears that the Government did not conduct the examination since the agreement between the management and Government had not been executed. Some formalities were yet to be completed in the matter of execution of the agreement between the management and the Government. There appeared to be some dispute with regard to certain terms to be incorporated in the agreement. Anyhow, ultimately the Government has entered into an agreement with the management and conducted the examination as directed by the learned Single Judge. 8. But, according to the appellants, the stand now taken W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 5 - by the Government is contrary to what they have taken in the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge. It is the case of the appellants that the Government should not have entered into such an illegal agreement with the management and that the plight of the appellants ought to have been kept in view. 9. However, admittedly the appellants are yet to complete their course. Their examination is scheduled to be held only sometime in 2010. Respondents-students have already written the examination; and what remains now is only publication of their results. In the nature of the contentions now raised by the appellants, we are not at all persuaded to entertain these appeals and that too on the face of the admitted position that the Government has not chosen to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge. More importantly, the Government, as mentioned earlier, has already executed the agreement with the management and held the examination for those students (respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.2790 of 2009) who had W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 6 - completed the course in the institution under the said management way back in 2008 itself. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to Ext.P3 order issued by the Government, which inter alia, provides for common syllabus, curriculam, examination, etc. for the course in question. It is contended by the appellants that the Government should apply uniform rule or yardstick in the case of appellants also. The Government should extend the same benefits to the appellants which have been granted to the respondents. Yet again, we do not propose to make any comment or observation on the above contention. In our view, it is for the appellants to approach the appropriate authority, if they have any specific grievance, and seek their remedies in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the field. Therefore, the writ appeals are closed with that liberty reserved in favour of the appellants. 11. However, it shall be ensured by the Government or the W.A.Nos.2789 & 2790 of 2009 - 7 - appropriate authority concerned, that the results of the respondents 1 to 3 in W.A.No.2790 of 2009 are published without any further delay. Since these respondents have written their examination in the last week of October, 2009, we do not find any reason why the Government shall not publish their results forthwith. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns