IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 28776 of 2008(A) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR. P.MINI, LECTURER IN ROGA NIDANA, GOVERNMENT AYURVEDA COLLEGE,TRIPPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR, AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION AND CONVENOR, POST GRADUATE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR AYURVEDA COURSES, KERALA, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANANDRUM. 3. DR. ABDUL RAVOOF, TUTOR, VAIDYARATNAM AYURVEDA COLLEGE, OLLUR, THYKKATTUSSERY P.O., TRICHUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA FOR R3 SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.28776/2008 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.3621/E1/2004/DAME DTD. 9/11/2004. EXT.P2: RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR POST GRADUATE COURSES IN AYURVEDA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GAII/A1/RTI ACT/07 DTD. 8/09/2008. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/A1/2879/07 DTD. 29/05/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/08/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/09/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GAII/A1/1531/99 DTD.16/08/1999. EXT.R3(B): COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE DTD. 13/07/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss V. GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 28776 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is working as a lecturer in Roga Nidhanam in the Government Ayurveda College, Thripunithura. She applied for admission to the PG course in Roga Nidhanam. Ext.P2 is the prospectus. Clause 3(b) and Note (ii) of the said prospectus reads as follows: “Clause 3(b):- Fifteen (15) seats are reserved for teaching staff (service quota) of Government and Government Aided Ayurveda Colleges in the State subject to a maximum of one seat in each speciality. Note: (ii) Selection under Clause 3(b) will be made by the selection committee strictly based on seniority in the case of Government Ayurveda College Teachers and length of service in various categories of posts taken together, in the case of Teachers from Government Aided Ayurveda Colleges, in concerned discipline. If there are two applicants for one discipline from Government College and aided College, the length of service will be the criteria. The Provisional service of the teachers who applied under W.P.C.No. 28776 OF 2008 -:2:- Teacher's Quota (service quota) will not be counted for selection. One who is selected for Post Graduate Courses under the Teachers quota and availed of the benefit should not seek admission again under the same reservation in another subjects. Teachers quota seat in Manasika roga specialty and the Panchakarma will be given to teaching staff of Kaya Chikitsa Department in addition to Kaya Chikitsa specialty quota and teaching staff quota in Rasa Sastra speciality and Bhaishajya Kalpana specialty will be given to teaching staff of Rasastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana Department. In the case of subject Panchakarma it will be given to teaches of Kayachikitsa till Panchakarma Department becomes stable.” 2. The 3rd respondent has been working as a teacher in an aided Ayurveda College. Though he commenced service in 29.03.99 on deputation basis, he has been working as a teacher in Roga Nidhanam with effect from 01.04.07. Apparently, the total length of service of the 3rd respondent from 29.03.99 was taken into account and compared to the service rendered by the petitioner with effect from 09.08.02, the 3rd respondent was treated as senior and W.P.C.No. 28776 OF 2008 -:3:- was admitted to MD, Roga Nidhanam, in the service quota. This is challenged in this Writ Petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent. 3. I heard Sri.V.G. Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Seemandhini, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 4. Mr.Arun advanced two contentions challenging the selection of the 3rd respondent. It was firstly contended that the service rendered by the 3rd respondent from 29.03.99 was against a deputation vacancy as evidenced from Ext.P4. He contended that only regular service can be taken into account and provisional service of the teaching staff will not be counted for selection under the Service quota. A perusal of Ext.R3(a) and R3(b) will show that the 3rd respondent was originally appointed as a teacher against a deputation vacancy of one Dr. B.Syamala with effect from 29.03.99. There is no dispute that his service had continued thereafter without any break. It is further seen from Ext.R3(b) that he had completed 8years of service on 11.06.07. The service rendered by the 3rd respondent against the deputation vacancy cannot be considered as W.P.C.No. 28776 OF 2008 -:4:- a provisional service. It is only provisional service which is liable to be eschewed from consideration. 5. Mr.Arun then contends that Ext.P4 will show that the 3rd respondent had commenced service as a teacher in Roga Nidhanam only with effect from 01.04.07. He refers to the first clause of Note (ii) to Clause 3 of Ext.P2 prospectus to contend that the length of service even in the case of a teacher from Government Aided Ayurveda College, for the purpose of reckoning seniority, must be in the concerned discipline. Mrs.Seemandhini, learned Senior Counsel points out and I think rightly that, where there are two, three or more rival applicants under the teachers quota, one from the Government College and another from the aided college, then the criteria to be adopted is the length of service. The crucial words “in concerned discipline” seems to be significantly absent in the second sentence of Note (ii) to Clause 3 of Ext.P2. If that be so, the 3rd respondent is entitled to raise a claim on the basis of service rendered by him with effect from 29.03.99. The petitioner admittedly commenced service only on 09.08.02 and since the common factor in so far as the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is concerned, is only W.P.C.No. 28776 OF 2008 -:5:- the length of service, obviously, the 3rd respondent is eligible to be preferred. In that view of the matter, I do not find any fault in the selection of the 3rd respondent. 6. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Accordingly the same is dismissed. It is made clear that there is nothing which stands in the way of the admission of the 3rd respondent, now being confirmed, in accordance with law. (V. GIRI, JUDGE) ttb W.P.C.No. 28776 OF 2008 -:6:-