IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY,THE27H DAY OF SEPTEMBER20135TH ASWINA, 1935 OP(KAT).No. 3331 of 2013 (Z) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN OA4782013 of KERALAADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED0304-2013 PETITIONER : - ---------------------- KERALA GOVT.AYURVEDA PHARMACIST'S ASSOCIATION, CENTRAL COMMITTEE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (REG NO20278), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT P.K. WILSON, AGED54YEARS, S/O P.M. KRISHNAN, PHARMACIST GR II, DISTRICT AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682018 AND RESIDING AT GEETHA BHAVAN, MLA ROAD, PUTHIYAKAVU, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM68230. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS : - -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM69500.
2. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
3. VINU.P.VIJAYAN, W/O LATET. VINOD KUMAR, KRISHA NIVAS, T.C NO46212(2), PARUTHIKUZHY, POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM69502. BY Sr. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOBLE MATHEW THIS OP KERALAADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2709-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(KAT).No. 3331 of 2013 (Z) ---------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : - ---------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ORIGINALAPPLICATION FILED AS O.A NO4782013 DATED2802-2013. ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SPECIAL RULES ISSUED AS PER NOTIFICATION DATED1701.1967. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY NOTIFICATION DATED19.11.2008 AMENDING SPECIAL RULES. ANNEXURE A3 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT
DATED1701.2008. ANNEXURE A4 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED1308.2008 OF1t RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A5 : TRUE COPY ORDER
DATED2412.2012 OF1t RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED0304-2012 IN O.A NO4782013. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED1707-2013. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED1807-2013 TO CONDONE DELAY IN FILING REVIEW APPLICATION NUMBERED AS M.A NO19272013. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF ORDER
DATED0708-2013 IN M.A NO. 1927/2013. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL. --------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
.................................................. O.P (K.A.T) No. 3331 of 2013 ................................................... Dated this the 27th day of September, 2013
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
The petitioner, Kerala Government Ayurveda Pharmacist's Association had moved the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge the appointment of the 3rd respondent, Vinu P.Vijayan. For one thing, going by the law laid by the Apex Court right from Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jithedrakumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC273 , Ashok Kumar Pande v.State of West Bengal [(2004) 3 SCC349 down to Gurparl singh v. State of Punjab [(2005) 3 KLT588 , the law is certain that the courts will loathe entertain public interest litigation in relation to service matters. Even if we were to take it that in extraordinarily, exceptionally exceptional situations of demonstrable infraction of public interest virtually crippling either the public exchequer or such other situation which may motivate the writ court to find public interest in such litigation, the facts of the case in hand are far from such a one. Both the 3rd respondent and her husband are Scheduled Caste O.P (K.A.T) No. 3331 of 2013 2 candidates and the 3rd respondent's husband, an Ayurveda Doctor, was advised for appointment by the Public Service Commission and the competent authority had issued appointment order. However, unfortunately, before he could join duty he lost his life to a motor accident. His widow, the 3rd respondent who is also a qualified Ayurveda Doctor, was given compassionate appointment by the Government as a Pharmacist (Ayurveda) in the Department of Indian Systems of Medicine. The Kerala Administrative Tribunal looked into the relevant aspects and concluded that the 3rd respondent cannot be treated as one who could not have been appointed by the Government, that too, on compassionate grounds. It turned down the Association's plea that the 3rd respondent was unqualified.
2. With the aforesaid, we do not find any ground to entertain this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Original petition, therefore, fails. In the result, this original petition is dismissed in limine. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) DG