STATE OF KERALA & ANR. versus NAVEENA PRABHU & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 23-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 958 
A 
-~~ 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. 
)>o 
. 
v 
... 
NAVEENA PRABHU & ORS. 
··c J Civil Appeal Nos. 1152-1153 oF 2009 
B 
FEBRUARY 23, 2009 
[S;8; SINHA AND DR.MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Administrative law - Policy decision - Interference with 
- Government Order introducing 'direct payment system' in 
,_ 
c 
Medical College in respect of teaching and non-teaching.staff 
r 
of College - Order of High Court extending the said benefit to 
hospital staff attached to the College - Held: Not sustainable 
1 .• 
- It was the policy decision of the Government to exclude 
) 
hospital staff attached to College from the purview of direct 
payment system - Policy decision usually cannot be interfered 
D with - More so hospital staff did f!Ot challenge the said decision 
;. 
at any stage ;.... Nature of duties and responsibilities discharged 
by teaching and non-teaching staff of college vis-a-vis hospital 
staff are distinctly different and separate. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in these 
appeals was whether the High Court was justified in 
holding that the respondent-hospital staff are entitled to 
be brought within the purview of direct payment system 
which was introduced by the Government Order in the 
Medical College for the teaching and non-teaching staff 
F 
of the College. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 By the G.O. (MS) No. 100/2000/H&FWD 
dated 25.4.2000 issued by Health and Family Welfare 
G Department, the Government issued directions for 
introducing 'direct payment system' in Padiar Medical 
~ 
College with effect from 1.1.2000 subject to the conditions 
set out in the agreement and also subject to further 
condition that selection of candidates for admission to 
,_ 
I 
H 
958 
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. V. 
959 
NAVEENA PRABHU & ORS. 
the institution against 85% of the sanctioned strength in A 
each institution would be made by the Government or by 
such authority as may be appointed by the Government 
for the purpose. It was also stipulated that for the 
remaining 15% of the seats, candidates would be selected 
-( 
by the Educational Agency from a list of eligible B 
candidates prepared by the Controller of Entrance 
Examination on the basis of the entrance examination 
--1 
conducted for the purpose. Subsequent thereto another 
order G.O. (Rt.) 517/2001/H&FWD was issued on 20.3.2001. 
The said order made it crystal clear that while introducing c 
the direct payment system by the Government in respect 
of Padiar Medical College, such benefit was extended to 
the members of the staff of the college whereas the staff 
of the hospital attached to the college was specifically 
excluded from the applicability of the aforesaid benefit. 
I. 
This order was never challenged by any of the D 
respondents since such benefit of direct payment system 
was not extended to the staff of the hospital attached to 
the college. They did not acquire any status and 
consequently they acquired no right being specifically 
excluded from the benefit thereof. [Paras 9, 10 and 11] E 
(964-G-H· 965-A- 965-B· 965-E ] 
' 
' 
' 
1.2 The decision of the Government to exclude the 
,.( 
staff of the hospital attached to the college from the 
purview of the aforesaid orders was made specifically 
stating that direct payment system is not introduced by F 
the Government so far as college hospital is concerned. 
The same being a policy decision of the Government and 
having not been challenged as either arbitrary or 
discriminatory at any stage by the respondents, thus the 
legality and validity of the aforesaid decision is not G 
scrutinized. Besides, the same being a policy decision of 
the Government, the same stands as this Court generally 
does not interfere with the policy decision of the 
Government. [Para 11] [965-G·H] 
1.3 As regard the submissions that the nature of H 
... 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
duties and responsibilities of the teaching staff of the 
)-
college and the staff of the hospital being the same there 
can be no discrimination so far the staff of the hospital, 
the teaching staff of the college as also non-teaching staff 
are being given the benefit of direct payment system but 
B 
that itself would not entitle or make the staff of the hospital 
eligible to claim the said benefits. There is no assessment 
by any authority with regard to the nature of duties and 
responsibilities discharged by the teaching and non-
teaching staff of the college vis-a•vis the staf

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.