High Court of KeralaDivision BenchReview petitions disposed of; Tribunal’s direct...

Dr. Anusree v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:2025:KER:31614

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhamed Mustaque
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2025-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
Backlog vacancies for locomotor disability candidates for Ayurveda Medical Officer posts are to be considered by the Court. The Tribunal’s order to set aside reservations for DA candidates from 1996 onwards is set aside; the Court notes data deficiency on vacancies from 1996 onwards and directs that backlog vacancies be computed and examined in light of prior notifications. It reinforces that a 3% reservation depends on the notification framework and that such reservations cannot be entertained belatedly after a ranked list is published unless the notification is challenged. The matter is left with the caveat that the carry forward rule applies within notified norms; the petitions are disposed of; the Court leaves open the question of DA reservations from 1996 onwards for future challenge to notifications.
Final Disposition
Review petitions disposed of; Tribunal’s direction regarding DA reservations from 1996 onwards set aside; backlog vacancies to be considered; data limitations acknowledged; 3% reservation contingent on proper notification; question of 1996-onward reservation left open for challenge to notifications; PSC bound by notification norms.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • DR. ANUSREE
  • DR. ANUSREE.M

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary to Government, Social Justice Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Secretary Ayush Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananathapuram
  • The Director Indian System of Medicine, Arogya Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Kerala Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Dr. Bismi.H.B W/o Syed Ali.T, Baithul Huda, Mekkhone, Chandanathope.P.O, Kollam
  • Sabira.K.R W/o Abdul Hakeem, Baithul Badar, Vikkap, Karippode.P.O, Palakkad
  • Dr.Radhika Menon D/o Ramachandran, 250 Infinity by Urban Tree, Porusgradn, Phase 2, Vangaram, Chennai
  • Dr.Shima Shaju.E.S Aged 33 Years, D/o Shaju Bastin, Elenjikal House, Edavilangu P.O, Thrissur
  • Ashwathy V Nair Aged 31 Years, D/o V.N.Velayudhan Nair, Plamakkal House, Ezhupunna Soutth.P.O, Cherthala
  • Tessy Dalya.K.J Aged 31 Years, D/o Jose Vincent, Kanakodethu House, Ezhupunna South.P.O, Cherthala
  • Dr.Gagana G.S Aged 36 Years, D/o V.P.GopalaKrishnan, Sreesruthi, TC 51/2474(1), NRWA A45/6, Roseline, Aramada P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • Dr.Suchithra S Aged 32 Years, D/o V.N.Sathyanathan, Vazhapillil House, Kunnukara P.O., Ernakulam
  • Aswathy Viswan Aged 33 Years, Kalayil House, Adimaly P.O., Idukki/Kottayam District, Pin-685564
  • Additional R15 Dr. Dinsha Dinesan
  • DEEPNA.M Aged 34 Years, W/o Dr.Dileepa.K, Pranavam, Aduthila, Payangadi.P.O, Kannur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.M.George
  • • Chithra P.George
  • • Mathews P.George
  • • V.M.Krishnakumar
  • • Rosh en D.Alexander
  • • Maya M.
  • • Tina Alex Thomas
  • • Harimohan
  • • Kochurani James

Counsels for Respondents

  • • A. J. Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court review petition challenging Tribunal orders in OP(KAT) proceedings regarding backlog vacancies for locomotor disability (DA) candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda). The Tribunal had directed reporting of vacancies from 1996 to 2017 and observed that 3% DA reservations were made in the 2009, 2013 and 2014 ranked lists. The Court, relying on an additional statement by the Director of Indian System of Medicine, held that the Tribunal’s direction to set apart DA reservations from 1996 onward should be set aside. The petition discusses the data deficiency about vacancies from 1996 onward and the law of carry forward; it notes that the 14/12/2017 notification stated a 3% reservation but did not fix vacancies and could not retrospectively alter lists published earlier. The Court relies on the National Federation of the Blind principle (Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind) to acknowledge DA candidates’ rights to reservation from 1996 onward but emphasizes such demands must be based on challenged notifications, not belatedly after ranked lists. Ultimately, the review petitions are disposed of, with a direction to consider backlog vacancies and a clear open question on 1996-onward reservation left to be pursued through proper challenge to notifications. The order underscores that the PSC cannot modify rules post-process and that the remedy lies in challenging notifications.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Carry forward rule
  • Principle of reservation for differently abled candidates (DA) based on cadre strength/notifications
  • National Federation of the Blind (Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind) principle

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that 3% reservation for DA candidates must apply to vacancies arising in each post and should be computed from the 1996 carry forward onwards, citing Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind (2013) to support reservations from 1996 onwards. They argued that backlog vacancies from 1996 onward must be computed and included in earlier notifications; their challenge to the 2017 notification was essential to realize the 3% quota; They sought computation of backlog vacancies and related appointments. They urged the Tribunal's approach be corrected and urged the Court to ensure DA reservations are consistent with notifications and carry forward rules.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the Tribunal’s direction to set apart DA reservations from 1996 onward was not proper in absence of clear notification; they emphasized data insufficiency from 1996 onward and that the 14/12/2017 notification did not fix vacancies and merely stated 3% reservations; they contended that the remedy lies in challenging the notification itself, and after the ranked list is published, belated demands cannot alter allocations; they argued that carry forward rules, if applicable, could disrupt existing lists and appointments; the State respondents emphasized that PSC cannot exceed the notified norms.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union of India and Others v. National Federation of the Blind and Others2013 KHC 4816PositiveCited to support the principle that DA candidates have a right to reservation from 1996 onwards; the Court clarifies that such rights arise from notifications and cannot be claimed belatedly after ranked lists are published.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Dr. Anusree v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` RP NO. 446OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/11/2023 IN OP(KAT) NO.444 OF 2022 OF ``` ``` HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/S:`** ``` DR. ANUSREE AGED 34 YEARS D/O RAJAN M.K., MADATHIL HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673502 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.M.GEORGE CHITHRA P.GEORGE MATHEWS P.GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`2 THE SECRETARY AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`3 THE DIRECTOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, AROGYA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`4 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004`** - **`5 DR.BISMI.H.B W/O SYED ALI.T, BAITHUL HUDA, MEKKONE, CHANDANATHOPE.P.O, KOLLAM, PIN – 691014`** ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 ``` ``` & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:2:- ``` - **`6 SABIRA.K.R`** - **`W/O ABDUL HAKEEM, BAITHUL BADAR, VIKKAP, KARIPPODE.P.O, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678503`** - **`7 DR.RADHIKA MENON D/O RAMACHANDRAN, 250, INFINITY BY URBAN TREE, PORUSGRADEN, PHASE 2, VANGARAM, CHENNAI, PIN - 600095`** - **`8 DR.SHIMA SHAJU.E.S AGED 33 YEARS`** - **`D/O SHAJU BASTIN, ELENJIKAL HOUSE, EDAVILANGU P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680671`** - **`9 ASHWATHY V NAIR AGED 31 YEARS D/O V.N.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, PLAMAKKAL HOUSE, EZHUPUNNASOUTHP.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 686537`** - **`10 TESSY DALIYA.K.J AGED 31 YEARS`** - **`D/O JOSE VINCENT, KANAKODETHU HOUSE, EZHUPUNNASOUTH.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPUZHA, PIN - 688537`** - **`11 DR. GAGANA G.S AGED 36 YEARS`** - **`D/O V.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN, SREESRUTHY, TC 51/2474(1), NRWA A45/6, ROSELANE, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695032`** - **`12 DR.SUCHITHRA S AGED 32 YEARS D/O V.N.SATHYANATHAN, VAZHAPILLIL HOUSE, KUNNUKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683578`** - **`13 ASWATHY VISWAN AGED 33 YEARS PALAYIL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O, IDUKKI-685 561, NOW RESIDING AT VALYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 685564`** - **`14 SREEKALA MOHAN AGED 33 YEARS D/O.T.L.MOHAN, THEKKEATTATHUVEEDU, ST.THOMAS NAGAR-64, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691015`** - **`15 ADDITIONAL R15 DR. DINSHA DINESAN`** **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 ``` ``` & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:3:- ``` ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` ``` AGED 28 YEARS, W/O. SUKESH S. JAYAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, EDAKOCHI P.O, COCHIN IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19/12/2024 IN IA 2/2024 IN RP 446/2024 ``` ``` BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER MAYA M.(K/897/2019) TINA ALEX THOMAS HARIMOHAN KOCHURANI JAMES SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE ``` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2025, ALONG WITH RP.513/2024, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:4:- ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ``` PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE ``` ``` & ``` ## **`THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 3[RD] DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 ``` ``` RP NO.513OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/11/2023 IN OP(KAT) NO.107 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/S:`** ``` DR. ANUSREE.M. AGED 34 YEARS D/O RAJAN M.K., MADATHIL HOUSE, EDACHERY P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE KERALA, PIN - 673502 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.M.GEORGE CHITHRA P.GEORGE MATHEWS P.GEORGE ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1 SUDHEENA.S AGED 32 YEARS W/O ARJUN SANTOSH, RESIDING AT BISMILLAH MANZIL, PLACHERY.P.O, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691331 2 SUJINA.P.V AGED 31 YEARS W/O DR.FAZIL HAMZA, RESIDING AT DHANYA HOUSE, VELLACHAL, KODAKKAT.P.O, KASARGOD DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 671310 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:5:- ``` ## `2025:KER:31614` - **`3 DEEPNA.M AGED 34 YEARS`** - **`W/O DR.DILEEPA.K, RESIDING AT PRANAVAM, ADUTHILA, PAYANGADI.P.O, KANNUR, KERALA., PIN - 670303`** - **`4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`5 THE SECRETARY AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** - **`6 THE DIRECTOR INDIAN SYSTEM OF MEDICINE, AROGYA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001`** ``` SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARGHESE ``` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2025, ALONG WITH RP.446/2024, THE COURT ON 03.04.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [34 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **O R D E R** Dated this the 3rd day of April 2025 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The backlog vacancies for persons suffering from locomotor disability for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) are to be considered by this Court. The issue in regard to filling up of the vacancies for differently abled candidates (hereinafter referred to as ‘DA candidates’) from 07/02/1996 to 18/04/2017 was considered by the Tribunal, and ordered to report the vacancies during the above period. This Court, based on an additional statement filed by the Director of Indian System of Medicine in O.P.(KAT). No. 444/2022, noted that reservations were made for DA candidates in the 2009 ranked list, 2013 ranked list and the 2014 ranked list; and set aside the order of the Tribunal to set apart reservations for DA candidates from 1996 onwards. **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` **==> picture [34 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` 2. There was a dearth of data in regard to the vacancies from 1996 onwards for DA candidates. The Tribunal decided the matter as though no such reservations based on vacancies were made up to 18/04/2017. This Court decided the matter from a different angle based on the law on carry forward, on the ground that the reservations were made in the previous notifications, which resulted in the ranked lists of the years 2009, 2013 and 2014. If the reservations were reckoned from 1996 onwards in the previous notifications, the judgment of this Court requires no reconsideration, warranting review. 3. Essentially, the question in this matter revolves around the factual calculation of vacancies from 1996 onwards and making available such vacancies in the previous notifications. 4. However, we note that the applicant in O.A.No.1439/2021 before the Tribunal did not produce the notification dated 14/12/2017. In the notification, it is specifically stated that 3% of the vacancies are reserved for DA candidates. There was no fixation of any vacancies in the notification. It is stated that the notification **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` **==> picture [34 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` was issued as against vacancies anticipated. Thus, it is clear that there was no calculation of 3% vacancies from 1996 onwards to accommodate the claim of DA candidates. In such a situation, the remedy is to challenge the notification claiming reservations from 1996 onwards. In the absence of any such challenge, the Court cannot entertain such a plea for reservation after the ranked list is published. If vacancies as such are reckoned from 1996 onwards for DA candidates, depending upon the number of vacancies notified, accommodating general candidates would be minimal or nil. A notification establishes a level playing field for all, including those seeking adequate representation through reservations. If the notification does not provide for the required reservations, the proper remedy is to challenge it. The rules set in the notification apply equally to everyone and cannot be altered after the process has begun, as doing so would disrupt the rights of others. Furthermore, the PSC cannot exceed the rules of the notification to modify allocations beyond the predefined norms. ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:9:- ``` 5. The applicant before the Tribunal challenged a general order of the Government dated 06/05/2017 issued by the Social Justice Department fixing 3% reservation for DA candidates based on cadre strength. According to the applicant/petitioner herein, the 3% reservation should be against the vacancies occurring in a post, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Union of India and Others v. National Federation of the Blind and Others [2013** **KHC 4816]** . The second prayer of the applicant in O.A No. 1439/2021 was to compute the backlog vacancies in the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) from 1996 to 2017. This prayer requires meritorious consideration if the backlog vacancies had not been adverted in the earlier notifications. The above contention raised by the petitioner has merit based on the **National Federation of the Blind** (supra). Therefore, the official respondents are bound to compute the backlog vacancies from 1996 onwards and also have to find out whether the computed vacancies from 1996 onwards have been made available in the previous notifications before making fresh ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [41 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` requests in the future to the PSC for appointment in the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda). 6. In the absence of a challenge to the notification dated 14/12/2017, the relief sought by the applicant/petitioner herein could not have been entertained by the Tribunal. It is seen that the ranked list was already published on 08/07/2020, and it was challenged before the Tribunal on 29/07/2021. Therefore, the plea for reservation from 1996 onwards cannot be entertained at a belated stage when a ranked list was already published and appointments were made thereon. The general direction in the **National Federation of the Blind** (supra) only points out the right of DA candidates for reservation from 1996 onwards; thus, conferring the right of the DA candidates to demand for reservation from 1996 onwards. Such a demand cannot be raised after the publication of the ranked list, without questioning the notification itself. Therefore, by reserving liberty to the DA candidates to raise such a demand for reservation from 1996 onwards, the review petitions stand disposed of. We make it clear that we have left open the question as to the ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [41 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ``` 2025:KER:31614 ``` demand for reservation from 1996 onwards. Our observation and findings based on the carry forward rule are accordingly modified, leaving open the question as above. ``` Sd/- ``` ## **`A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE`** ``` Sd/- ``` ``` SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JUDGE ``` ``` ms ``` **==> picture [58 x 58] intentionally omitted <==** ``` [RP Nos.446/2024 IN OP(KAT)444/2022 & RP No.513/2024] IN OP(KAT)107/2023 ``` ``` -:12:- ``` ## `2025:KER:31614` ``` APPENDIX OF RP 446/2024 ``` |**`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`**|| |---|---| |**`Annexure R15(a)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 31.10.2023 IN`**| ||**`OP(KAT) NO. 396/2023 AND CONNECTED MATTERS.`**| |**`Annexure R15(b)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE ADVICE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 3RD`**| ||**`RESPONDENT TO THE APPLICANT HEREIN BEARING NO.`**| ||**`RIF(2)11200/18/GW DTD. 07.07.2023.`**| |**`RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`**|| |**`Annexure R6(b)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST PUBLISHED BY KERALA`**| ||**`STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ON 04.01.2025`**| |**`Exhibit R6(a)`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTING VACANCIES PERFORM`**| ||**`HAVING ID.NO.35520 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF`**| ||**`INDIAN MEDICAL SYSTEM`**|