Indian Association of Clinical Psychologists (Kerala Region) v. Rehabilitation Council of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** ## **MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/4TH BHADRA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 11037 of 2013 (D)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. THE INDIAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS (KERALA REGION), REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR.S.SATHEESAKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.SREEKANDAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS,CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, GOVERNMENT DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANNUR.** ## **2. JOSEPH ISACC,** - **ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** ## **3. SREEHARI.R.,** - **LECTURER IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, AMIRTA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PONEKKARA, KOCHI.** **BY ADVS.SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS B-22, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 016 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.** ## **2. THE CHAIRPERSON,** - **REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS B-22, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 016.** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **WPC.NO.11037/2013 (D)** **4. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **5. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** ## **6. THE PRINCIPAL,** **GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R3,R4 &R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2013, THE COURT ON 26/08/2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WP(C).No. 11037 of 2013 (D)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA ACT IN THE YEAR 1992.** **EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.3-2/RCI-2013 DATED 24.01.2013 ISSUED FROM THE CHAIRMAN, REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI TO THE SMT.STUTI S.KACKER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF DISABILITY AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.** **EXHIBIT P2(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.01.2011 ISSUED FROM THE MEMBER SECRETARY, REHABILITATION COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.** **EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DOCUMENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.54/2009/H&FWD DATED 26.2.2009.** **EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE ADDENDUM NOTIFICATION NO.GR I C(2) 27559/11/GW DATED 21.11.2012 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------------------------** ## **N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W.P.(C). No. 11037 of 2013** **...................................................... Dated this the 26[th] day of August, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition was heard on 01.07.2013, mainly on the basis of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State that, the issue was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C). No. 3456/2012 and judgment was dictated accordingly. But before signing the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that there were some vital distinctions and sought to address the Court again and it was accordingly that the matter was listed on 18.07.2013 as, “to be spoken to”. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader again. ## 3. The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers: “i) Declare that for participating as Clinical Psychologist, person should possess qualification prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India and that his name should be entered in the Register maintained by the Rehabilitation Council of India. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ order or direction restraining the 5[th] respondent from recruiting persons who lacks W.P.C. No.11037 of 2013 -2- qualification prescribed by the 1[st] respondent as Clinical Psychologist. iii) Issue a writ of prohibition or appropriate writ order or direction restraining the 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents from appointing persons who lacks qualifications prescribed by the 1[st] respondent as Clinical Psychologist. iv) Call for the records relating to Ext.P4 and P5 and quash the originals of the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order. v) Declare that Ext. P4 and P5 are legally unsustainable.” 4. When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 29.05.2013, the following interim order came to be passed: “It is submitted by learned counsel on both sides and learned Govt. Pleader that challenging the very same Government Order on very same ground, a public interest litigation is pending in the Court of the Honourable the Chief Justice as W.P.(C).No.3456/12. It is also submitted that some question raised in this writ petition arise for a decision in the said writ petition also. Hence, it is appropriate that this writ petition is also heard along with W.P.(C).No.3456/12. Hence, it is directed that this writ petition may be posted along with W.P.(C).No.3456/12 in the Court of the Honourable the Chief Justice.” W.P.C. No.11037 of 2013 -3- 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, W.P.(C).No. 3456/2012, filed as a Public Interest Litigation, was considered by the Division Bench and as per judgment dated 31.05.2013, observing that no element of 'Public Interest' was involved, interference was declined and it was dismissed accordingly. It was thereafter, that the present writ petition, which was originally tagged along with the Public Interest Litigation, came to be listed before this Court, as per order dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Division Bench. 6. It is stated that, the order challenged in W.P.(C).No. 3456/2012 (PIL) was the Government Order dated 29.10.2011, creating two posts of Assistant Professors in Clinical Psychology, in the Department of Psychiatry, as a prelude to commence a Clinical Psychology Course leading to M.Phil, sanctioned by the Government of India; simultaneously specifying that the above post will be filled up by promotion from among the Clinical Psychologists working under Medical Education Department who possess M.Phil or Ph.D in Clinical Psychology, based on their seniority. In furtherance to the said order, consequential order was issued, promoting the party respondents in the said writ petition. The concerned petitioner filed the Public Interest Litigation, challenging both the orders, mainly contending that, W.P.C. No.11037 of 2013 -4- the said orders were in violation of the 'guidelines' issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India constituted as per the provisions of Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. 7. The Bench observed that, Ext.P2 produced therein were guidelines prescribing the syllabus for M.Phil in Clinical Psychology, issued by the Rehabilitation Council of India and that, it being in the form of 'guidelines', was not liable to be accepted as a statutory mandate. The Bench was of the opinion that, the parallel sought to be drawn to the Medical Council of India Act did not hold good. It was accordingly, that the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of any merit, also making it clear that the Bench was not at all convinced that, there was any 'public interest' involved in the writ petition. 8. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners referring to the Scheme of the Statute (Rehabilitation Council of India Act), with specific reference to the definition of the term 'Rehabilitation Professional' under Section '2(n)' and the recognition of the Course for Rehabilitation Professional under Section 11 of the Act. Reference is also made to Section 18 of the Act dealing with the power of Rehabilitation Council to prescribe the minimum standard of education and also Section 19, as to the registration of Rehabilitation Professional. It is W.P.C. No.11037 of 2013 -5- stated that the qualification prescribed by the Rehabilitation Council of India in the relevant schedule for practising as Clinical Psychologist is 'M.Phil in Clinical Psychology/Diploma in Medical and Social Psychology', from an institution recognised by the Rehabilitation Council of India. The grievance is that, Ext.P4 Government Order dated 26.02.2009 prescribing the revised qualification for Clinical Psychologists at the State level and Ext.P5 Addendum Notification issued by the P.S.C prescribing the qualification for selection of Clinical Psychologist in the Health Department, in tune with Ext.P4, are contrary to the provisions of the Central Enactment and the stipulations made by the Rehabilitation Council of India, which in turn are under challenge. 9. After hearing both the sides, it is seen that, the main prayer of the petitioners relate to the steps taken for the recruitment to the post of Clinical Psychologists by the respondent State and the selection conducted by the P.S.C. The primary question to be considered is whether this Court is justified in entertaining the writ petition. In view of the declaratory nature of the relief sought for; the prayer to restrain the 5th respondent from recruiting persons who lack the qualification prescribed for the appointment of clinical Psychologists by the 1st respondent and to prohibit respondents W.P.C. No.11037 of 2013 -6- 3 and 4 from appointing such persons, this Court finds that the issue comes within the jurisdiction of the Kerala State Administrative Tribunal. This is more so, in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court as reported in **Ashraf v. State of Kerala (2013 (2) KLT 852)** , holding that all service matters concerning persons appointed by the Civil Service of the State or matters relating to any Civil Post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State, fall within the jurisdiction, power and authority of the State Administrative Tribunals, in terms of Section 15(1)(b) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In the above circumstance, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum. The questions raised in the writ petition are left open. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** kp/-