IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2010 / 24TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18378 of 2010(S) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.K.RAVI SANKARAN, S/O.N.KUNJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAKARMA, GOVT.AYURVEDA COLLEGE, TRIPPUNITHURA, RESIDING AT MUNDAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KODANAD.P.O, VIA PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683 544. BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY SRI.M.P.RAJU SMT.ANNIE GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR MARG., NEW DELHI-110 002. 4. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN MEDICINE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 61-65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. BY SR.G.P.SMT.K.MEERA ASST. S.G.SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18378 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: “(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 1st respondent to fill up the vacant posts of teachers in the Govt. Ayurveda Colleges before admitting students to the Post Graduate Courses in Ayurveda for the academic year 2010-11. (ii) to direct the 4th respondent to undertake simultaneous inspection of on all the Government and Aided Ayurveda Colleges in the State to ascertain the strength of eligible teaching staff. (iii) to direct the 1st and 5th respondents not to admit students to the Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda until compliance with the regulations issued under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. (iv) to award full cost of this Original Petition to the petitioners. The writ petition is filed purporting to be one in public interest. The prayer Nos.1 and 3 extracted above indicate that the respondents be prohibited from admitting students to the Post Graduate Courses in Ayurveda till the vacant teaching posts in the Government Ayurveda Colleges are filled up. WP(C).No.18378/2010 2 2. The petitioner is an Associate Professor in the Department of Panchakarma in the Government Ayurveda College, Trippunithura. He is due to retire from the service on 30.4.2012 on attaining the age of 55 years in accordance with the relevant service rules applicable to the petitioner. Para 2 of the writ petition which in our opinion is relevant in the context of the writ petition reads as follows: “2. The petitioner submits that the 1st Respondent has not implemented the recommendations of the 3rd and 4th Respondents to raise the age of superannuation from 55 to 65 years, he has to retire from service as Associate Professor on 30th April, 2012. In fact the 3rd Respondent, had directed the 1st respondent vide its letter F.No.1-19/2006-U II dated 23.2.2007 that the retirement age of teachers in centrally funded institutions in Higher and Technical Education be enhanced to 65 years. A true copy of the letter F.No.1-19/2006-U II dated 23.3.2007 issued by the 3rd Respondent is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P-1. This required an amendment to Rule 60 of Chapter 8 of the Kerala Service Rules. However, the State Government did not amend the provisions of Rule 60 of Chapter 8 of the Kerala Service Rules and thus maintained 55 years as the age for superannuation.” In the background of the above mentioned pleadings we are required to examine the true nature of this writ petition and decide whether the writ petition is a bonafide litigation. From the prayer it is clear WP(C).No.18378/2010 3 that the petitioner possibly does not claim any relief which is personal to him. In substance it purports to be a writ petition more in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation. But, from the pleadings extracted above, we are left with the impression that the petitioner, in the guise of espousing the prospects of the students of Ayurveda Colleges, is only manipulating the levers of the administration through this Court to achieve a personal benefit. Whether people similarly situated like the petitioner are to be retired at the age of 55 years or the rule should be amended raising the retirement age to 60 years is a policy matter with which we have nothing to say at this stage. But, such a situation shall not enable people like the petitioner to pursue a litigation like the present one. We do not see any merits in the writ petition. The same is dismissed at the admission stage. J.CHELAMESWAR Chief Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS WP(C).No.18378/2010 4