High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2014-10-10Writ petition dismissed; Interim order vacated;...

Dr. Shaji Kutty v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.22363 of 2014 (U)

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2014-10-10
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition dismissed; Interim order vacated; No costs.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; Interim order vacated; No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Dr. Shaji Kutty

Respondents

State of Kerala
The Commissioner of Entrance Examinations
The Principal and Controlling Officer, Department of Homoeopathic Medical Education, Government Homoeopathic Medical College, Iranimutom Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of Homoeopathy, Homoeopathy Directorate
The District Medical Officer (Homoeo), Revenue Towers, Adoor, Pathanamthitta District
Dr. E.K. Sheena

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri D. Kishore
• Sri/ SMT. Mini Gopinath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Roshan D Alexander
• Sri Thomas Antony

Case Synopsis & Summary

Dr. Shaji Kutty, a government Homeopathy Medical Officer, challenged the 2014 prospectus for admission to Post‑Graduate degree courses in Homeopathy under a rural service quota in Kerala. He contended that the eligibility criteria, notably clause 4.b prescribing an upper age limit of 45 years and clause 5.5 requiring seven years of service after passing the examination, violated Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminatory classification. He relied on Supreme Court decisions such as Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa and Others and Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as the Orissa High Court’s Institute of Pharmaceutical Science & Technology v. Pharmacy Council of India, to argue that the regulations framed by central or state bodies cannot impose age restrictions for education or specialization where they are not universally applicable. The State respondents argued that the rural service quota is designed to ensure continuity of service in rural areas, and the 45-year cap is rationally connected to the objective of leaving at least five years of service after training, particularly under Rule 6(ii) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission Rules, 2010, and supported by prior Kerala decisions (WP 14823/2013). The court acknowledged the Article 14 framework and cited Budhan Choudhry, NM Thomas, and Deepak Sibal to explain the test for intelligible differential and nexus. It ultimately found the age-limit policy not wholly unreasonable, upheld the state objective, dismissed the petition, vacated the interim order, and awarded no costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the Constitution of IndiaArticle 19(1)(g) of the ConstitutionArticle 21 of the ConstitutionArticle 21A of the ConstitutionArticle 162 of the ConstitutionMedical Council of India Regulation (MCI Regulation)Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses Under Service Quota Rules, 2010 (Rule 6(ii))Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Courses Under Service Quota Act, 2008Pharmacy Act (Regulations framed under the Pharmacy Act)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Article 14 forbids class legislation
Classification must be founded on intelligible differential with rational relation to the objective
Nexus between the objective and the means
Purpose of service quota is to ensure continuity of service in rural areas

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the 2014 prospectus’ rural service quota for PG Homeopathy admissions imposes an upper age limit of 45 years (clause 4.b) and a seven-year minimum service requirement (clause 5.5) that amount to arbitrary, discriminatory classification in violation of Article 14. He relies on Supreme Court precedents such as Ashok Kumar Mishra and Bishambhar Dayal Mohan and on the Institute of Pharmaceuticals Science & Technology to argue that age restrictions under medical education regulations are not permissible when they conflict with central or state regulations (e.g., MCI Regulations and Pharmacy Act). He argues that there is no parallel restriction in Allopathy PG admissions and stresses that the rule’s intent is not clearly connected to a legitimate service objective. He seeks invalidation of the age cap or a more equitable framework aligned with constitutional guarantees and regulatory norms.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend the quota as a state policy to ensure continuity of rural medical service post-training. They argue the 45-year ceiling ensures at least five years of service remain after completion of PG training, with four of seven years likely to be in rural posts, thus linking the criterion to the objective of improving rural healthcare. They rely on Rule 6(ii) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission Rules, 2010 and earlier Kerala decisions (including WP 14823/2013) to justify the age limit and the accompanying relaxation provisions for certain categories. They contend Article 14 permits reasonable classifications and that the challenged provisions have a rational nexus to the stated object. They dismiss reliance on Ashok Mishra and similar decisions as distinguishable, noting the State’s general power to create quotas for service and that the questioned rules do not violate the Constitution or MCI regulations.”},

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa and Others	2012 KHC 2854	Distinguished	Cited by petitioner and acknowledged as controlling in other contexts, but the Kerala court distinguishes it, relying on its own WP 14823/2013 precedent to uphold the age-limit policy.
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others	(1982) 1 SCC 39	Positive	Used to articulate the Article 14 framework and intelligible differential/rational nexus test.
Institute of Pharmaceuticals Science & Technology, Padmapur v. Pharmacy Council of India and Others	2013 KHC 2068	Distinguished	Cited to contrast with the present judgment on age restrictions; Kerala court relies on contrary precedent.
Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar	AIR 1955 SC 191	Positive	Cited to articulate the intelligible differential and rational nexus requirements under Article 14.
State of Kerala and another v. NM Thomas and others	AIR 1976 SC 490	Positive	Cited for the Article 14 framework; supports the intelligible differential concept.
Deepak Sibal and another v. Punjab University and others	1989 (2) SCC 145	Positive	Cited to discuss the objective-nexus principle in classification under Article 14.

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. Shaji Kutty 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** **FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/18TH ASWINA, 1936** ## **WP(C).No. 22363 of 2014 (U)** **------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -----------------------** **DR. SHAJI KUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.R.KRISHNANKUTTY, MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO DISPENSARY, SEETHATHODE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIIDNG AT SHAHANA, MUKKOLA, MULLOOR P.O., VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **-------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (J) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, UPPER ZONE, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **3. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, IRANIMUTTOM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.** **4. THE DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHY, HOMOEOPATHY DIRECTORATE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.** **5. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HOMOEO), REVENUE TOWERS, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.** **6. DR.E.K.SHEENA,** - **MEDICAL OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO DISPENSARY NEW MAHI, KANNUR.** **R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ROSHAN D ALEXANDER R6 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.9.2014 THE COURT ON 10-10-2014, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **msv/** **WP(C).No. 22363 of 2014 (U) ---------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE CARD OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE DEGREE COURSES IN HOMEOPATHY FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015.** **EXHIBIT P2(a): LEGIBLE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF EXHIBIT P2.** **EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE DEGREE COURSES IN HOMEOPATHY FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013.** **EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION FOR MEDICAL POST GRADUATE DEGREE/DIPLOMA COURSES 2014.** **EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE COURSES IN AYURVEDA FOR THE YEAR 2014-2015.** **EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.1781/2013/H&FWD DATED 25.05.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10:TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.3184/C3/2014/GHMCT DATED 03.09.2014 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT)NO.3556/2009/H&FWD DATED 4.12.2009** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT R6(a):TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DETAILS OF STUDENTS ADMITTED IN THE M D (HOMOEO) COURSE 200708 AT GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE RECEIVED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **msv/** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.** ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 -----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of October, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner is a Homeopathy Doctor currently working in the Department of Homeopathy in the State of Kerala. The petitioner entered in the service on 6.7.2004 and is to retire on 30.6.2023. The date of birth of the petitioner is 10.6.1967 and he has completed more than 46 years in age. The petitioner is an aspirant for the Post Graduate Degree Courses in Homeopathy for the quota earmarked among candidates working in rural service. In the prospectus for admission for the year 2014-2015, one seat is reserved for rural service quota. The petitioner challenges stipulation in prospectus to the extent prescribing eligibility for admission by restricting upper age limit to 45 years in clause 4.b and also prescribing seven years minimum service for all service candidates after the passing of the examination in clause 5.5. According to the petitioner, the prescription of the upper age limit will take away chance of candidates like the petitioner. It is submitted that the prescription of the above eligibility conditions are violative of W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 2 Article 14 of the Constitution of the India. The petitioner relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ashok Kumar Mishra v. State of Orissa and Others** [2012 KHC 2854], **Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others** [(1982) 1 SCC 39] and also the judgment of the Orissa High Court in **Institute of Pharmaceuticals Science & Technology, Padmapur v. Pharmacy Council of India and Others** [2013 KHC 2068]. 2. According to the petitioner, fixation of eligibility conditions are different from general candidates and therefore, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of the India. The petitioner further submits that in the stream of Allopathy and other Post Graduate Courses, there are no similar stipulation for the service quota candidates. The age limit is prescribed in clause 4.b; the only relaxation is given in the age for the candidates belong to SC/ST and to Teachers of Homeopathic Medical Colleges. The question, therefore, arises whether fixation of upper age limit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Ashok Kumar Mishra'** s case ( _supra_ ) held that prescribing upper age W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 3 in violation of the Medical Counsel of India Regulation is violative of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 21 and 21(A) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that such prescription by the State repugnant to the MCI Regulation is void and inoperative. Similarly, in the **Institute of Pharmaceutical** 's case ( _supra_ ), the Orissa High Court also took the view that the prescription of upper age limit is contrary to the regulation framed under the Pharmacy Act is unconstitutional. 3. The petitioner has no case that the prescription of the upper age limit at 45, is contrary or repugnant to any regulation framed by the Central Homeopathic Counsel. The contention that there is no similar prescription for Allopathy courses and similar courses is also unsustainable. Rule 6(ii) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses under Service Quota Rules, 2010 is extracted below: “ _(ii) The upper age limit will be 47 years for Post Graduate Degree courses and 48 years for Post Graduate Diploma course as on the 30th day of April, subject to the conditional that the upper age limit may be relaxed in such away that the minimum service_ W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 4 _available after completion of the course for any service quota candidate shall not be less than 5 years till thedate of his/her retirement.”_ 4. Therefore, the only question is whether prescription of upper age limit is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of the India or not. Article 14 forbids class legislation; it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. However, in order to sustain permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and, (ii) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the objective sought to be achieved by the action in question. The classification may be founded on differential basis according to objects sought to be achieved. The validity of classification must be adjudged with reference to the purpose of law (see **Budhan Choudhry and others v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 191], State of Kerala and another v. N.M.Thomas and others [AIR 1976 SC 490] and Deepak Sibal and another v. Punjab** W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 5 ## **University and another [(1989) 2 SCC 145]** . 5. The purpose of providing service quota is to have the continuity of the service. The upper age fixed as 45 considering the fact that after three years Post Graduate Programme atleast the Department may have the service of the candidates for seven years after passing the final examination. The quota is provided for the benefit of the State and not as a reservation to particular class of the candidates. It is to be noted that deputation is permitted for the programme with full salary and allowances. The four years out of seven years period shall be in the rural area. The main intention is to have a quality of doctors working in the rural areas. If no upper age prescribed, the very purpose having such quota of admission will be jeopardized. As has been noted purpose of having quota is to promote the State interest though an individual may benefit out of such quota. Therefore, fixation of the upper age limit has nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Thus, classification based on age is valid. 6. A similar challenge also has been made as against Rule 6(ii) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Post W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 6 Graduate Courses under Service Quota Rules, 2010 in W.P.(C) No. 14823/2013, this Court held as follows: “ _3. A reference to Rule 6(ii) of the KeralaMedical Officers' Admission to Postgraduate Courses Under Service Quota Act, 2008 ('the Act'for short) is apposite. The same prescribes theage limit of 47 years for Post Graduate DegreeCourses and 48 years for Post Graduate DiplomaCourses as on 30th day of April. The Government has been given the power to relax the upper age limit provided the candidate has 5 years left after the completion of the course. The petitioner is concededly 55 years of age and would attain the age of 58 years if he successfully completes the Post Graduate Course. A period of 5 years would not be left after the completion of the course before retirement under the circumstances. The age limit has been prescribed by the Government of Kerala to ensure that atleast 5 years service will be left after the successful completion of the Post Graduate Courses by a candidate. The contention therefore that the prescription of age limit has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved has to fail._ W.P.(C) No.22363 of 2014 7 _The prescription of the upper age limit for a candidate under the Medical Education Service quota cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or arbitrary. The clause does not fall foul of Article14 of the Constitution of India as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”_ 7. The petitioner has also raised another argument based on Article 162 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the prescription of upper age limit is beyond scope of exercise of executive power. I am not impressed with this argument. The petitioner has no dispute regarding exercise of executive power for creating quota for service candidate. Therefore, he cannot question the eligibility conditions prescribed for the quota by executive power. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed in this writ petition is vacated. No costs. Sd/- **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE** ln