High Court of KeralaDivision BenchReview petitions disposed of; backlog vacancies...

Case / Petition Number:2025:KER:31614

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A. Muhammed Mustaque
  • Shoba Annamma Eapen
Judgment Date
2025-04-03
Court Decision / Holding
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 Tribunal's order to set apart reservations for DA candidates from 1996 onwards is set aside. The Court notes data gaps on post-1996 vacancies and, while recognizing the carry-forward principle and the 3% reservation, leaves open the question of whether reservations from 1996 onwards should be demanded. It clarifies that the remedy to challenge the 14/12/2017 notification remains available, and the petitions are disposed of with directions to consider backlog vacancies on record and to determine appropriate relief, if any, consistent with the notifications and constitutional guarantees.
Final Disposition
Review petitions disposed of; backlog vacancies to be considered; Tribunal order setting aside reservations from 1996 onward set aside; question of reservations from 1996 onward left open; remedy to challenge the 2017 notification acknowledged.

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, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Director Indian System of Medicine, Arogya Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Kerala Public Service Commission represented by its Secretary, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Dr. Bismi H.B.
  • Sabira K.R.
  • Dr. Radhika Menon
  • Dr. Shima Shaju E.S.
  • Ashwathy V Nair
  • Tessy Daliya K.J.
  • Dr. Gagana G.S.
  • Dr. Suchithra S
  • Ashwathy Viswan
  • Sree Kala Mohan
  • Dr. Dinsha Dinesan
  • Deepna M.
  • Sudheena S.
  • Sujina P.V.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

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

Counsels for Respondents

  • • A.J. Varghese

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two review petitions (RP Nos. 446 of 2024 in OP(KAT) 444/2022 and RP No. 513 of 2024 in OP(KAT) 107/2023) were heard by a division bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen. The petitions challenge a Tribunal's orders on reservations for differently abled (DA) candidates for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) and on the computation of backlog vacancies from 1996 to 2017. The Tribunal directed reporting of vacancies during the period and observed that reservations were made in the 2009, 2013 and 2014 ranked lists, but the High Court noted data gaps on vacancies post-1996 and examined the matter through the carry-forward principle in conjunction with the government’s policy of 3% DA reservations fixed in 2017. The petitioners rely on Union of India v. National Federation of the Blind and Others (2013 KHC 4816) to argue that backlog vacancies from 1996 onward must be computed and reflected in earlier notifications; they contend retroactive reservations are essential to ensure DA candidates’ rights. The respondents submit that reservations must be based on cadre strength and actual vacancies, and that altering allocations post-publication of ranked lists would undermine the notification framework. The Court ultimately disposed of the petitions, directing that backlog vacancies be considered on record and left open the question of reservations from 1996 onward, noting that challenging the 14/12/2017 notification would be the proper remedy. The bench comprised Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Carry forward rule in reservations
  • Right to reservation for DA candidates from 1996 onward (National Federation of the Blind doctrine)
  • Notifications govern allocations; PSC cannot exceed rules; remedy is to challenge notification

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that backlog vacancies for DA candidates from 1996 onward must be computed and reflected in the earlier notifications. They rely on the National Federation of the Blind authority and argue that the 3% DA reservation should apply against the cadre vacancies (post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda)) and should have appeared in the 2009, 2013 and 2014 ranked lists. They claim that the Tribunal treated the matter as if no such reservations existed, which violates the carry-forward principle and impairs the DA candidates’ rights. They urge the Court to compute backlog from 1996 onward and verify whether reservations were incorporated in prior notifications. They stress that the 14/12/2017 notification did not fix vacancies, only declaring a 3% reservation; without challenging that notification, relief cannot be entertained. They argue that the remedy lies in challenging the notification and that backward adjustments may be required to ensure fair representation for DA candidates, notwithstanding potential disruption to existing lists.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that reservations must attach to cadre strength and actual vacancies notified. They argue that the 3% DA reservation is contingent upon vacancies and cannot be retroactively imposed without an appropriate notification. They contend that the Tribunal’s approach, which did not carve out DA reservations retroactively, aligns with the notification framework and safeguards the integrity of the ranked lists published in 2020. They emphasize that the rules of the notification apply to all and cannot be altered after a process has commenced, and that the Public Service Commission cannot exceed its notified norms. They urge the Court not to disturb the rank lists without a challenge to the notification, asserting that the proper remedy is to challenge the notification itself rather than modify allocations mid-stream.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Union of India and Others v. National Federation of the Blind and Others2013 KHC 4816PositiveThe decision is cited to support the petitioners’ contention that backlog vacancies from 1996 onward must be computed and that DA reservations may be warranted from that period; the court treats the cited precedent as a favorable authority for recognizing the DA rights.

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 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`**|