Prajeesh Joseph and Kishor Kumar R.K. v State of Kerala, Directorate of Medical Education and Kerala Public Service Commission (OP(KAT) No. 126 of 2021)
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
- Mohammed Nias C.P.
- Judgment Date
- 2022-11-16
- Court Decision / Holding
- In the result, this Original Petition stands dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Prajeesh Joseph
- Kishor Kumar R.K.
Respondents
- State of Kerala
- Directorate of Medical Education, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram
- Kerala Public Service Commission (represented by its Secretary)
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • S.P. Aravindakshan Pillay
- • N. Santha
- • V. Varghese
- • Peter Jose Christo
- • S.A. Anand
- • L. Annapoorna
- • Vishnu V.K.
- • Abhirami K.
- • Uday Kuruvilla Sabu Christy
Counsels for Respondents
- • P.C. Sasidharan
- • B. Unnikrishna Kaimal
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with a challenge by two Cath Lab Technicians to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s OA 339/2020, concerning eligibility for the post of Cath Lab Technician. The petition traces the recruitment sequence: Annexure-A10 (2017) notification based on Annexure-A9 (2015) qualifications, for vacancies noted in Annexure-A8 (2011). Amendments followed: Annexure-A12 (2018) altered qualifications; the Public Service Commission then issued Annexure-A18 (2018) cancelling Annexure-A10 and Annexure-A15 (2019) issuing a fresh notification based on Annexure-A12. Petitioners argued that vacancies existing in 2011 should have been filled under the original rules (Annexure-A9) and not under amended rules (Annexure-A12); they relied on Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (Full Bench, 2006) to support their position. The Tribunal dismissed OA 339/2020, and the petition has been carried to this Court. After hearing counsel, the Court holds that the issue is covered by Mehaboob v. State of Kerala (2022) 4 KLT 653, which held vacancies must be filled according to the Rules in force at the time of filling, not the rules that existed when vacancies arose. The judgment also cites State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar and Others (SC) 2022 (3) KLT Online 1034 to reinforce this approach, and dismisses the petition. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench on 16 November 2022.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Vacancies are to be filled according to the Rules in force, not the Rules that existed at the time of vacancy.
- Mehaboob v. State of Kerala (2022) 4 KLT 653 (principle relied upon by the Court)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that vacancies existing in 2011 should be filled strictly under Annexure-A9 rules and not on the amended basis of Annexure-A12. They pressed Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy (Full Bench, 2006) to sustain their plea. They assert that the sequence of notifications (A10, A12, A15) and the cancellations have caused prejudice by deviating from the original eligibility criteria. They rely on the principle that vacancies should be filled as per the rules in force at the time of recruitment, a view they say is supported by the controlling ratio in Mehaboob v. State of Kerala; consequently, they seek admission to the original, pre-amendment framework.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that recruitment must follow the Rules in force at the time of filling, and that the PSC’s changes in notifications (including cancelation of A10 and issuance of A15 based on A12) reflect a lawful, current framework. They rely on Mehaboob to justify applying current rules to fill vacancies and cite the SC decision in State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar and Others to bolster the approach. They contend the petition misreads the sequence of Notifications and the Tribunal’s OA, and that the challenge lacks merit under the prevailing recruitment regime.
Cited Precedents (3)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohanan v. Director of Homeopathy | 2006 (3) KLT 641 | Mentioned Only | Cited by petitioners; court does not apply Mohanan’s ratio, instead follows Mehaboob's principle. |
| Mehaboob v. State of Kerala | 2022 (4) KLT 653 | Positive | Court relies on Mehaboob to hold vacancies must be filled under rules in force, not the rules existing at vacancy creation. |
| State of Himachal Pradesh & Others v. Raj Kumar and Others | 2022 (3) KLT Online 1034 (SC) | Positive | SC decision cited in support of applying current rules to fill vacancies. |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Prajeesh Joseph and Kishor Kumar R.K. v State of Kerala, Directorate of Medical Education and Kerala Public Service Commission (OP(KAT) No. 126 of 2021) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.