IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH APRIL 2010 / 26TH CHAITHRA 1932 WA.No. 730 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.713/2010 Dated 09/04/2010 APPELLANT: PETITIONER: -------------- DR.RAZIA SULAIMAN.V., INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER, E.S.I.DISPENSARY, KILIKOLLUR, KOLLAM – 4. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/04/2010, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.731 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN & S.SIRI JAGAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- W.A. NOS. 730 & 731 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Siri Jagan, J. The appellants are Medical Officers working in the Insurance Medical Service Department of the Government of Kerala. They aspire for admission to the Medical Post Graduate Courses in the service quota. But since they would not have minimum five years service after completion of course, paragraph IV (c) of Ext.P4 prospectus which lays down a condition that the applicants for admission in the service quota should have minimum five years of service after the course is completed, stands in their way. According to the petitioners, the clause is arbitrary and unreasonable and it does not have any nexus with the object for which it has been introduced. The appellants would submit that even after they complete the age of superannuation, they are prepared to serve the Government on contract basis and, therefore, the stipulation of minimum five years of service after the Course is over is arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore they filed the Writ Petitions challenging the said clause and seeking interim orders. The learned single Judge declined the interim relief by the following order: W.A. NOS.730 & 731 OF 2010 :: 2 :: “Heard. Sri.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these writ petitions and Mrs.Nisha Bose, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. 2. The petitioners are Insurance Medical Officers in the Insurance Medical Service. They challenge the stipulation in clause IV(c) of Ext.P4 Prospectus that service candidates seeking admission for Postgraduate Course in Medicine, should have at least five years of service left before the date of superannuation in their respective departments and that the upper age limit will be reckoned as on 30.4.2010. Relying on Exts.P2 and P3 Prospectus for the earlier years, namely 2008 and 2009, the petitioners contend that though they may not have five years of service left before the date of superannuation after completing the Postgraduate degree/Diploma course, as the purpose sought to be achieved by the Government can be achieved by appointing them on contract basis after the date of superannuation and as the petitioners are willing to execute a bond in that regard at the time of admission for the course, they may be considered for admission to the Post-graduate degree course. 3. What the petitioners want is essentially to re- write the terms of the Prospectus. That cannot, in my W.A. NOS.730 & 731 OF 2010 :: 3 :: opinion, be done at the interim stage. On the terms of Ext.P4 Prospectus, the petitioners who will not have five years service left after completing the Postgraduate course before they retire from service, cannot be considered for admission to the Post-graduate degree course. I accordingly decline the prayer for interim relief.” The appellants are challenging the said interim order. 2. We have heard the counsel for the appellants. We do not prima facie find anything arbitrary or unreasonable in the said clause in Ext.P4 Prospectus. The clause is introduced with the specific intention that the candidates who aspire for admission would have minimum five years of service in the Department before the candidate attains the age of superannuation so as to enable them to serve the State as per the bond to be executed by them. Simply because the petitioners are prepared to serve the Government even after their retirement, they cannot be granted admission. In fact by getting them to serve after the age of superannuation they derive double benefit of admission as well as assured employment even after retirement, which would in fact is to the detriment of those who have a right to be considered for W.A. NOS.730 & 731 OF 2010 :: 4 :: appointment to the post to which they have to be appointed on contract basis, which is certainly against the policy of the Government. We prima facie find that the stipulation in clause IV (c) of Ext.P4 does have nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the same and cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. On the other hand the same is based on sound principles in consonance with the policy of the Government. As such we are unable to find that the learned single Judge has exercised his discretion in the matter of granting interim relief wrongly. In the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in the challenge against the interim order. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge (S. SIRI JAGAN) Judge ahz/