LexSTATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus MAHESH KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 946
STATE OF KERALA & ANR.
v
MAHESH KUMAR & ORS.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1147- 1151 of 2009
FEBRUARY 23, 2009
[ S.8. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
Travancore..:cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953 :
ss. 23 and 27 - Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners
c Rules -
r. 49 - Central Council of Homoeopath (Minimum
Standards of Education) Regulations, 1983 -Introduction of
direct payment system in Medical College by Government
Order - 40 senior most and qualified teaching staff and 50
non-teaching staff brought under the direct payment system
0
excluding eight members of teaching staff - Challenge to -
Held: Said members are holder of recognized qualification
and have the registration thus, should not be discriminated -
They should get similar benefits as are given to other persons
- Thus, direction issued in that regard - Said members to be
E
accommodated in terms of seniority - Government Order G 0.
(MS) No. 10012000 ds) H & FWD dated 25.4.2000 and GO.
(MS) No. 991021 H & FWD dated 25. 4. 2002.
In terms with the Government Order dated 25.4.2000
direct payment system was introduced in the
F
Homoeopathic Medical College. A list of 40 seniormost
and qualified teaching staff and 50 non-teaching staff was
furnish~d for staff fixation. By another Government Order,
the said list was approved. The said staff was to be
recognized as eligible for the said benefit. However,
G respondents-members of the teachin.g staff were
excluded from the approved list. Respondents challenged
their exclusion. Single Judge of High Court quashed the
Government Order to the extent it excluded the
respondents from the list of qualified teaching staff. It
H
946
,
..
' .,
! , ..
STATE OF KERALA & ANR V.
947
MAHESH KUMAR & ORS.
directed to include the respondents in list on the basis of A
·
~
seniority thereby entitling them to salary under the 'direct
payment system'. Division Bench of High Court upheld
the order. Hence the present appeals.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
B
HELD: 1.1 On a careful reading of Central Council of
Homoeopath (Minimum Standards of Education)
Regulations, 1983; ss. 23 and 27 of the Travancore-
Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953; Rule 49 of the
Travancore-Cochin Medical P~actitioners Rules; and s. 15 c
of the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 every holder
of recognized qualification is eligible for registration under
the Medical Council. Therefore, the remaining 8
respondents are also eligible to get the benefit of 'direct
payment system'. The registration granted by the Medical 0
Council on the basis of recognized qualification fully
satisfied the qualification prescribed for the post of tutor,
namely, permanent- registration under the Medical
Council. [Para 18] [956-H; 957-A-B]
1.2 When 40 teaching and 50 non-teaching staff have E
been brought within the purview of the 'direct payment
system' by the appellant, there is no justification as to why
only the remaining 8 persons should be deprived from
-i
getting the same benefit. W,hen the State Government has
accepted the responsibility with regard to the said 40 F
teaching and 50 non-teaching staff, the remaining 8 who
are otherwise qualified and have tile registration should
not be discriminated upon. They should also get the
similar benefits as are being given to other 40 persons.
{Para 19] [957-C-D]
G
1.3 In the peculiar facts and circumstances, it is
\
directed that the remaining 8 persons be also given the
same benefit as has been given to 40 teaching and 50
non-teaching staff and they should be accommodated in
terms of their seniority. [Para 20] [957-E]
H
948
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 2 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1147-1151 of 2009
>
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.06.2005 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA. No. 189, 259, 323,
B
334 and 229 of 2005.
C.S. Ranjan, G. Prakash, Beena Prakash, Ramesh Babu
M.R. for the Appellant.
R. Rajendran Nair, Shakil Ahmed Syed, K. Radhakrishnan,
'1>
c S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Bina Madhavan Gaichangpoo
Gangmei, T.L.V. Iyer, Subraonium Prasad, Jay Kishore Singh,
Wills Mathews Arun Basil, M.K. Michael, H.L.K. Puri, Romy
Chacko, C.K. Sasi, for the Respondent.
D
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
~
2. These appeals filed by the State of Kerala are directed
r
against the judgment and order dated 3.6.2005 passed by the
E
Division Bench of the HExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.