Kerala High Court
Dr. Mithun Kp vs Kerala Public Service Commission on 21 March, 2025
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:1:-
2025:KER:24315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 496 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.09.2024 IN OA (EKM) NO.675 OF 2024 OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (ADDITIONAL BENCH,
ERNAKULAM)
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. MITHUN KP,
AGED 42 YEARS
S/O LATE DR. DIVAKARAN K.P., ATHIRA, VATTOLI, VATAKARA,
KOZHIKODE .PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR,GOVT
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 DR. ABDUL VAHAB C P,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED ALIC CK, CHERAYACHAMVEETTIL PUTHANVEETTIL
KAVANCHERY PO, MANGALAM, MALAPPURAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GOVT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
3 DR. MUHAMMED RASHID P,
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O ABDURAHIMAN P, PUTHIYAMBRA HOUSE, UNNIKULAM PO POONOOR,
KOZHIKODE. PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR GOVT
HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
BY ADVS.
JIJUMON H.
ARSHA SATHEESAN
HEMANTH H.
PREMJI SUKUMAR
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:2:-
2025:KER:24315
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE
P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2 STATE OF KERALA ,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AYUSH DEPARTMENT, ROOM
NO.301 ANNEXE-1, GOVT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER,
GOVT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695009
(*i)4 ADDL R4: THE COUNCIL OF HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE,
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.
(*i)IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT AS PER
ORDER DATED 05/12/2024 IN OP(KAT) 496/2024.
(*ii)5 ADDL R5. ASHIKMUHAMMED.S,
AGED 35 YEARS,S/O SHAFEEK.N, SALIM NIVAS, CHENKOOR, ELAMAD,
KOLLAM-691537.
(*ii)6 ADDL R6. HAFISSHERIEF,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.SHERIEF.A.M, MANJAPPARA HOUSE, MANJAPPARA
P.O, KOLLAM 691533
(*ii)7 ADDL.R7. SALINI MANDAL B.G,
AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.BANKIM PRASAD MANDAL, ASHISH, IRITTY P.O,
KEEZHUUR, KANNUR-670703.
(*ii) ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS (R5 TO R7) AS
PER ORDER DATED 16/12/2024 IN IA 1/2024 IN OP(KAT) 496/2024.
(*iii)8 ADDL R8. DR.SREELAKSHMI SANKAR,
AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.K.V.SIVASANKARAN, JUNIOR RESIDENT, CASE
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:3:-
2025:KER:24315
TAKING AND REPERTORISATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO
MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KANNAMALY P.O, KOCHI-682008
(*iii)9 ADDL.R9.DR.MUHISINA A.MANAF,
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL MANAF, JUNIOR RESIDENT, CASE TAKING
AND REPERTORISATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT PANIPURA THEKKETHIL,
R.C.CHURCH ROAD, KAYAMKULAM-690502.
(*iii)10 ADDL.R 10. DR.VISHNUPRIYA V.K,
AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUNIOR RESIDENT ORGANON
OF MEDICINE/HOMOEOPATHIC PHILOSOPHY, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO
MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT VILAKUNI HOUSE,
KATALUR P.O., KOYILANDY (VIA) KOZHIKODE-673529
(*iii)11 ADDL.R11. DR.LAKSHMI K.U,
AGED 28, W/O.BIBIN CHANDRABABU, JUNIOR RESIDENT, PRACTICE OF
MEDICINE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE, RESIDING AT KOTTILINGAL HOUSE,
KOTTAPPADI P.O, THRISSUR 680505.
(*iii)ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS (R8 TO R11) AS
PER ORDER DATED 16/12/2024 IN IA 2/2024 IN OP(KAT) 496/2024
(*iv)12 ADDL R12 DR. PRADEEP T,
AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. C. THANUMALAYAN, REVATHY HOUSE,(ROSE
GARDENS), THIRUVAMBADY P.O.,THRISSUR
(*iv)13 ADDL R13 DR. UMESH MOHAN,
AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAMOHAN, AMMA VEEDU, THOLOOR,
ARYANADU P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
(*iv) ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS (R12 & R13) AS
PER ORDER DATED 17/01/2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN OP KAT 496/2024
(*v)14 ADDITIONAL R14 DR. MUHAMMED SHAMEM.B
AGED 42,S/O. MUHAMMADALI (LATE).RESIDING AT VARIKKODAN
HOUSE, CHEMMANJYODE P.O, MALAPPURAM I THE PRESIDENT OF
INDIAN HOMOEPATHIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (REG.NO.64/2004),
(*v)IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R14 AS PER ORDER DATED
3/02/2025 IN IA 2/2025 IN OP(KAT)496/2024
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:4:-
2025:KER:24315
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE
S.SHAJI
LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
T.R.RAJESH
SHRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
ATHUL V. VADAKKEDOM
REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
JALAJAMANI K.R.
LAL K.JOSEPH, KSMC
T.C.KRISHNA, DSGI-IN-CHARGE
P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).470/2024, THE COURT ON 21/03/2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:5:-
2025:KER:24315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP(KAT) NO. 470 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2024 IN OA NO.1638 OF 2024 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. SONY. N, D/O SASEEDHARAN N,
AGED 37 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN MATERIA MEDICA,GOVT
HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE
RESIDING AT NANNATT HOUSE, KARANGARA, MANNUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN
- 673328
2 DR. APARNA S. KUNNUMMEL,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O SASIDHARAN K.R., WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN CASE
TAKING AND REPERTORISATION,GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE,ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT KUNNUMMEL
PARAMBIL,THATHAMPALLY PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013
3 DR. BINJU A. MURALI,
AGED 37 YEARS
D/O A. MURALEEDHARAN,WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
MATERIA MEDICA,GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,ATTUKAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695009 RESIDING AT SAFALYAM,
KAITHAKUZHY, VELICHIKKALA PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691573
4 DR. JITHIN RAJAN,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O K. RAJAN,WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN MATERIA
MEDICA, GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, ATTUKAL,
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:6:-
2025:KER:24315
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SIVANANDANAN, EDAMONNILA,
NAVAIKULAM, VETTIYARA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695603
5 DR. TINU REGINA. B.J.,
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O B.J. JOSEPH, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN CASE
TAKING AND REPERTORISATION, GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE, ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT ANTHIKKAT
HOUSE, ASHOKA ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
6 DR. MUNSHID N T, S/O ABDURAHIMAN. N.T.,
AGED 39 YEARS
WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN CASE TAKING AND
REPERTORISATION, GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE,
KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE 673010 RESIDING AT KARUTHEDATH (H),
MUKKOM, CHENNAMANGALLUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673602
7 DR. JOSEPH T. KARIYIL,
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O THOMAS J, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN PRACTICE OF
MEDICINE, GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, ATTUKAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT KARIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKALA,
KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
8 DR. AJEESHA VASUDEVAN,
AGED 35 YEARS
D/O M.K. VASUDEVAN, WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN
PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, GOVT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL
COLLEGE, ATTUKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESIDING AT AJINI
NIVAS, CHOORALLUR, THEKKEKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690017
9 DR. K.R. RAMYA, D/O K. RAJAGOPALAN,
AGED 38 YEARS
WORKING AS SENIOR MEDICAL OFFICER, HOMOEOPATHY WING,
DIRECTORATE OF AYUSH, GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI 110054,
RESIDING AT RACHANA NIVAS, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKKAD, PIN -
678611
BY ADVS.
JIJUMON H.
ARSHA SATHEESAN
HEMANTH H.
PREMJI SUKUMAR
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:7:-
2025:KER:24315
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, THULASI HILLS, PATTOM PALACE P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004
2 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AYUSH DEPARTMENT,
ROOM NO.301, ANNEXE-1, GOVT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER,
GOVT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695009
(*i)4 ADDL R4. CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,61-65,INSTITUTIONAL
AREA,OPP.'D' BLOCK ,JANAK PURI ,NEW DELHI 110058
(*i)5 ADDL R5. MINISTRY OF AYUSH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AYUSH BHAVAN,B BLOCK ,GPO
COMPLEX,INA,NEW DELHI 110023
(*i)ARE SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5
AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/2024 IN OP(KAT)470/2024
(*ii)6 ADDL R6 THE COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE,
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS
REGISTRAR,COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING,RED CROSS ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695035
(*ii)IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/12/2024 IN
OP (KAT)470/2024
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.C.KRISHNA, SCGC
LAL K.JOSEPH, SC, COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE
P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC
SUNILKUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2025, ALONG WITH OP(KAT).496/2024, THE COURT ON 21/03/2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
-:8:-
2025:KER:24315
JUDGMENT "CR"
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024]
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
These original petitions have been filed by the applicants before the Tribunal. The applicants in O.A.(EKM).No.675/20241 approached the Tribunal challenging an erratum notification dated 16/11/2023 and notification dated 30.12.2023 issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission (the 'PSC' for short) for appointment to the posts of Associate Professor and Professor, respectively, in Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges; and the applicants in O.A.(EKM).No.1638/20242 approached the Tribunal challenging the erratum notification dated 16/11/2023. Their challenge was declined. In these original petitions, the challenge is confined to the erratum notification dated 16/11/2023, regarding selection to the post of Associate Professor, on the ground that the qualification prescribed is contrary to the Special Rules.
1 Petitioners in O.P.(KAT.No.496/2024) 2 Petitioners in O.P.(KAT.No.470/2024) [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:9:- 2025:KER:24315 BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CASE:
2. On 16/08/2023, the PSC issued a notification for the post of Associate Professor in Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. The qualification prescribed was in accordance with the Special Rules issued by the Government under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968. This Special Rule is called the Kerala State Homoeopathic Medical Education (Teaching) Services Special Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Rules'). The last date for receipt of the applications was 20/09/2023. Thereafter, the PSC issued the erratum notification on 16/11/2023, prescribing qualifications as per the Regulations formulated by the Central Council of Homoeopathy. This Regulation is called the Homoeopathy Central Council (Minimum Standards Requirement of Homoeopathic Colleges and attached Hospitals) Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Council Regulation 2013'). As seen from the impugned order, there was a challenge against the earlier notification dated 16/08/2023, issued by the PSC, which prescribed eligibility [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:10:- 2025:KER:24315 criteria in line with the Special Rules, in O.A.(EKM).No.1554/2023.
Considering the challenge, on 25/09/2023, the PSC decided to publish an erratum notification prescribing eligibility criteria as referred to in the Council Regulation 2013. In light of the erratum notification, O.A.(EKM) No.1554/2023 was closed vide order dated 03/10/2023 without adjudicating the challenge. Thereafter, the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Professors in the Homoeopathic Department, approached the Tribunal challenging the erratum notification.
3. There exist differences regarding essential qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules and the Council Regulation 2013. These differences can also be highlighted with reference to the original notification and the erratum notification. The original notification prescribes the eligibility criteria outlined in the Special Rules, whereas the Erratum notification prescribes the eligibility criteria outlined in the Council Regulation 2013. [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:11:- 2025:KER:24315 DIFFERENCE RELATED TO ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS:
4. The essential qualifications given in the notification dated 16.08.2023 and erratum notification dated 16.11.2023 are as follows:
Essential Qualifications Notification dated 16.08.2023 Erratum notification dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure A4 in OA(EKM).No.675/2024) (Annexure A6 in OA(EKM).No.675/2024) (1) A Postgraduate Degree in Homoeopathy (1) Postgraduate qualification in recognized by the Central Council of Homoeopathy with four years of teaching Homoeopathy and included in the Second experience as Assistant professor/Lecturer in Schedule of the Homoeopathy Central the concerned subject in a Homoeopathic Act.1973 (Central Act 59 of 1973). College of Degree level. The qualification shall be the one included in the Second (2) 4 years teaching experience in the Schedule of Homoeopathy Central Council concerned subject in any of the recognized Act, 1973.
Homoeopathy Medical Colleges, in Kerala or recognized Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in any other States.
(3) Permanent registration with Travancore Cochin Medical Council.
5. The key difference is in regard to two aspects. First, the Special Rules insist on 4 years of teaching experience in recognised Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in Kerala or recognized Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in any other State. Whereas, the [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:12:- 2025:KER:24315 Council Regulation 2013 prescribes 4 years of teaching experience in a Homoeopathic College of Degree level. Second, under Special Rules, Registration with the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council is necessary, whereas there is no such registration requirement under the Council Regulation 2013.
SUBMISSIONS:
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no repugnancy between the Council Regulation 2013 and Special Rules, and since the Special Rules enacted by the State insist on higher standards, the Special Rules ought to have been followed for appointments to the post of Associate Professor in the State. It was further argued that the erratum notification was issued by the PSC without obtaining approval from the State Government. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would submit that the challenge made by the petitioners is not maintainable since they have not impleaded the applicants before the Tribunal in the earlier O.A.(EKM).No.1554/2023, in the instant Original Petitions. [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:13:- 2025:KER:24315 According to the learned Standing Counsel for the PSC, diluting qualifications prescribed under the Council Regulation 2013 will have an adverse impact on Homoeopathy Medical education. It was further submitted that in the light of inconsistency in prescription of qualifications, the qualifications prescribed under the Council Regulation 2013 will prevail. In this matter, certain private parties also got impleaded. They would contend that the challenge was made before the Tribunal belatedly, after the recruitment process had gone much further, based on the notification. It was also submitted that O.A.(EKM).No. 675/2024 was filed before the Tribunal only on 21/05/2024, six months after the erratum notification was issued. It was further pointed out that when there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the Special Rules and Regulations of the Central Council of Homoeopathy, the Council Regulation 2013 would prevail, as it aims to maintain uniform standards in Homoeopathic education throughout the country. It was submitted that many of the applicants would cross the upper age [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:14:- 2025:KER:24315 limit if this Court interfere with the notification issued by the PSC. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there is no inconsistency between the Special Rules and Council Regulation 2013, and the eligibility criteria stipulated in the Special Rules would in no way dilute the quality of the education. DISCUSSIONS:
7. The Tribunal, after considering the Council Regulation 2013 and the Special Rules, concluded that there is an inconsistency between them. As a result, the Council Regulation 2013 would take precedence. Furthermore, the Tribunal stated that the requirement in the Special Rules for experience from a Government Homoeopathic Medical College or a recognized Government Homoeopathic College in other states, along with mandatory registration with the Travancore-Cochin Medical Council, cannot be regarded as a prescription of higher standards. [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:15:- 2025:KER:24315 i. Repugnancy or inconsistency:
8. What is repugnancy or inconsistency? Can a mere difference of qualification in Union law and State law be classified as repugnancy? The term "repugnant" is defined under Black's Law Dictionary as "Inconsistent or irreconcilable with; contrary or contradictory to."
9. Repugnancy or inconsistency arises when two laws are in conflict and cannot coexist harmoniously. The term "repugnant" signifies that both laws are irreconcilable and cannot operate together. Article 254 of the Constitution addresses inconsistencies between laws enacted by Parliament and those made by State legislatures.
10. To determine inconsistency, the nature, objectives, and intended application of the law must be examined. If a State law introduces objectives that contradict or undermine those established by Parliament, it results in inconsistency. However, if the State law [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:16:- 2025:KER:24315 upholds the objectives of the parliamentary law and merely supplements it, no inconsistency exists.
11. The Apex Court in M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India, [(1979) 3 SCC 431] has elucidated the situations in which repugnancy can arise, as follows:
"24. It is well settled that the presumption is always in favour of the constiutionality of a statute and the onus lies on the person assailing the Act to prove that it is unconstitutional. Prima facie, there does not appear to us to be any inconsistency between the State Act and the Central Acts. Before any repugnancy can arise, the following conditions must be satisfied:
1. That there is a clear and direct inconsistency between the Central Act and the State Act.
2. That such an inconsistency is absolutely irreconcilable.
3. That the inconsistency between the provisions of the two Acts is of such nature as to bring the two Acts into direct collision with each other and a situation is reached where it is impossible to obey the one without disobeying the other."
Further, the Apex Court laid down the following proposition to find out repugnancy.
"35. On a careful consideration, therefore, of the authorities referred to above, the following propositions emerge:
1. That in order to decide the question of repugnancy it must be shown that the two enactments contain inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions, so that they [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:17:- 2025:KER:24315 cannot stand together or operate in the same field.
2. That there can be no repeal by implication unless the inconsistency appears on the face of the two statutes.
3. That where the two statutes occupy a particular field, but there is room or possibility of both the statutes operating in the same field without coming into collision with each other, no repugnancy results.
4. That where there is no inconsistency but a statute occupying the same field seeks to create distinct and separate offences, no question of repugnancy arises and both the statutes continue to operate in the same field."
12. In Forum for People's Collective Efforts v. State of W.B. [(2021) 8 SCC 599], the Apex Court has again emphasized three types of repugnancy as follows:
132.1. The first envisages a situation of an absolute or irreconcilable conflict or inconsistency between a provision contained in a State legislative enactment with a parliamentary law with reference to a matter in the Concurrent List. Such a conflict brings both the statutes into a state of direct collision. This may arise, for instance, where the two statutes adopt norms or standards of behaviour or provide consequences for breach which stand opposed in direct and immediate terms. The conflict arises because it is impossible to comply with one of the two statutes without disobeying the other.
132.2. The second situation involving a conflict between State and Central legislations may arise in a situation where Parliament has evinced an intent to occupy the whole field. The notion of occupying a field emerges when a parliamentary legislation is so complete and exhaustive as a Code as to preclude the existence of any other legislation by the State. The State law in this context [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:18:- 2025:KER:24315 has to give way to a parliamentary enactment not because of an actual conflict with the absolute terms of a parliamentary law but because the nature of the legislation enacted by Parliament is such as to constitute a complete and exhaustive Code on the subject.
132.3. The third test of repugnancy is where the law enacted by Parliament and by the State Legislature regulate the same subject. In such a case, the repugnancy does not arise because of a conflict between the fields covered by the two enactments but because the subject which is sought to be covered by the State legislation is identical to and overlaps with the Central legislation on the subject."
13. With the above perspective, we shall analyse the Council Regulation 2013 and the Special Rules to assess the alleged inconsistency, which ultimately led to the issuance of the erratum notification by the PSC.
14. The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973, was enacted by Parliament under Entry 65 (Professional, Vocational, and Technical Training) and Entry 66 (Coordination and Determination of Standards in Higher Education) of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:19:- 2025:KER:24315
15. The Special Rules are framed by the State Government invoking its power traceable under Article 309 of the Constitution and also under the Subject of Legislation in Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Based on the above power and subject of Legislation, the State enacted the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968. It is in exercise of the power conferred under the Kerala Public Service Act, the Special Rules were framed. Further, under Entry 25 in List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, the state has the authority to legislate on matters of education and medical education, subject to Entries 65 and 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
16. The Council Regulation 2013 intends to maintain standards of education in Homoeopathy education. The State has exclusive power to make laws in regard to service conditions and State Public Services. The Kerala Public Service Act was enacted to regulate recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public service. It necessarily implies that the State has the power to [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:20:- 2025:KER:24315 prescribe eligibility conditions for the recruitment of such persons to be appointed in public service.
17. Article 246 of the Constitution governs the distribution of legislative powers. While the State has the authority to legislate on education and prescribe standards under Entry 25 of List III (Concurrent List), this power is subject to the standards set by the Union under Entry 66 of List I (Union List). A key question arises when there is an inconsistency between laws made by the Union and the State. The Constitution itself provides clarity on this issue through Article 254, which states that, in case of inconsistency, the law enacted by Parliament prevails unless the State law has received the President's assent.
18. To determine whether an inconsistency exists, it is essential to assess whether allowing the State law to remain in force would lead to undesirable outcomes or render the two laws irreconcilable. If the State and Union laws are indeed inconsistent and cannot coexist, the supremacy of Parliament must be upheld. [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:21:- 2025:KER:24315 The inconsistency or repugnancy is relatable to facts. The law may be different but not necessarily inconsistent when applied to the specific facts. The inconsistency or repugnancy will have to be addressed with reference to the nature of legislative power given to the Parliament and the State Legislature to make laws.
19. The Apex Court in Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120] at para.35 has observed as follows, "35. The legislative competence of Parliament and the legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIth Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of List II gave to the State an exclusive power to legislate on "education, including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III". Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III was amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:
"25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour."
Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I is as follows:
"66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:22:- 2025:KER:24315 higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions."
Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254."
And further in the paragraph 36, it was held that "36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:23:- 2025:KER:24315 the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education. Standards of education in an institution or college depend on various factors. Some of these are:
(1) the calibre of the teaching staff;
(2) a proper syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in the given span of time;
(3) the student-teacher ratio;
(4) the ratio between the students and the hospital beds available to each student;
(5) the calibre of the students admitted to the institution; (6) equipment and laboratory facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case of medical colleges;
(7) adequate accommodation for the college and the attached hospital; and (8) the standard of examinations held including the manner in which the papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged."
20. Further, the Apex Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P. [(2016) 7 SCC 353] has [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:24:- 2025:KER:24315 observed that, "101. To our mind, Entry 66 in List I is a specific entry having a very specific and limited scope. It deals with coordination and determination of standards in institution of higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions. The words "coordination and determination of standards" would mean laying down the said standards. Thus, when it comes to prescribing the standards for such institutions of higher learning, exclusive domain is given to the Union. However, that would not include conducting examinations, etc. and admission of students to such institutions or prescribing the fee in these institutions of higher education, etc. In fact, such coordination and determination of standards, insofar as medical education is concerned, is achieved by parliamentary legislation in the form of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and by creating the statutory body like Medical Council of India (for short "MCI") therein. The functions that are assigned to MCI include within its sweep determination of standards in a medical institution as well as coordination of standards and that of educational institutions. When it comes to regulating "education" as such, which includes even medical education as well as universities (which are imparting higher education), that is prescribed in List III Entry 25, thereby giving concurrent powers to both Union as well as States. It is significant to note that earlier education, including universities, was the subject-matter of List II Entry 11 ["11. "Education" including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III"] . Thus, power to this extent was given to the State Legislatures. However, this entry was omitted by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 with effect from 3-7- [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:25:- 2025:KER:24315 1977 and at the same time List II Entry 25 was amended [ Unamended Entry 25 in List III read as: "Vocational and technical training of labour"] . Education, including university education, was thus transferred to the Concurrent List and in the process technical and medical education was also added. Thus, if the argument of the appellants is accepted, it may render Entry 25 completely otiose. When two entries relating to education, one in the Union List and the other in the Concurrent List, coexist, they have to be read harmoniously. Reading in this manner, it would become manifest that when it comes to coordination and laying down of standards in the higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions, power rests with the Union/Parliament to the exclusion of the State Legislatures. However, other facets of education, including technical and medical education, as well as governance of universities is concerned, even State Legislatures are given power by virtue of Entry 25. The field covered by List III Entry 25 is wide enough and as circumscribed to the limited extent of it being subject to List I Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66.
102. Most educational activities, including admissions, have two aspects: the first deals with the adoption and setting up the minimum standards of education. The objective in prescribing minimum standards is to provide a benchmark of the calibre and quality of education being imparted by various educational institutions in the entire country. Additionally, the coordination of the standards of education determined nationwide is ancillary to the very determination of standards. Realising the vast diversity of the nation wherein levels of education fluctuated from lack of even basic primary education, to institutions of high excellence, it was thought desirable to determine and prescribe basic minimum standards of [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:26:- 2025:KER:24315 education at various levels, particularly at the level of research institutions, higher education and technical education institutions. As such, while balancing the needs of States to impart education as per the needs and requirements of local and regional levels, it was essential to lay down a uniform minimum standard for the nation. Consequently, the Constitution- makers provided for List I Entry 66 with the objective of maintaining uniform standards of education in fields of research, higher education and technical education.
103. The second/other aspect of education is with regard to the implementation of the standards of education determined by Parliament, and the regulation of the complete activity of education. This activity necessarily entails the application of the standards determined by Parliament in all educational institutions in accordance with the local and regional needs. Thus, while List I Entry 66 dealt with determination and coordination of standards, on the other hand, the original List II Entry 11 granted the States the exclusive power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, except the determination of minimum standards and coordination which was in national interest. Subsequently, vide the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the exclusive legislative field of the State Legislature with regard to education was removed and deleted, and the same was replaced by amending List III Entry 25 granting concurrent powers to both Parliament and State Legislature the power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education, except that which was specifically covered by List I Entries 63 to 66." [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:27:- 2025:KER:24315
21. The Apex Court in a similar instance in T.N. Medical Officers Assn. v. Union of India [(2021) 6 SCC 568] has observed that, "53. From a composite reading of these authorities, the position of law as emerges, is that all aspects of admission cannot be said to be covered by Entry 66 of the Union List, even if the entire admission process is incorporated in a single code. Certain aspects of admission stipulated by the State may trespass into legislative zone of "coordination and determination of standards". One illustration of such potential trespass would be lowering the eligibility criteria for admission fixed by a Union legislation, the 2000 Regulations in this case. In such a situation, the State would be encroaching upon exclusive field of the Union. The case of Preeti Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742] was decided broadly on this rationale.
54. But there can be rules on facets of admission process in institutions of higher education framed by the State Legislature which would not have impact on the subjects enumerated against Entry 66 of the Union List, and thus would not result in conflict with the latter. While analysing the State's power to legislate under Schedule VII List II Entry 11 of the Constitution, as it originally existed, it has been observed in Modern Dental College [Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P., (2016) 7 SCC 353 : 7 SCEC 1] (at SCC p. 431, para 103) that "... except the determination of minimum standards and coordination which was in national interest", the [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:28:- 2025:KER:24315 State had power to legislate with respect to all other aspects of education."
22. There cannot be much quarrel that the qualification for the Associate Professor prescribed under both the Special Rules and the Council Regulation 2013 is to ensure a standard of education in Homoeopathic Medical Colleges. Therefore, the question returns to whether the qualifications prescribed under the Special Rules supplement the qualifications prescribed under the Council Regulation 2013.
23. The Council Regulation 2013 is to ensure minimum standards in Homoeopathy education. If higher standards are prescribed under the Special Rules framed by the State, it cannot be said that there is inconsistency. The supremacy of the Union laws would arise only if there exists a conflict, and such a conflict cannot be avoided. It is only on the finding of the existence of repugnancy, the State Legislation must yield to the supremacy of the Union law. Under the distribution of legislative power, the Constitution conferred power to both the Parliament and the State Legislature to legislate [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:29:- 2025:KER:24315 on higher education. The supremacy of Union law would prevail only when there is inconsistency.
24. In this case, Special Rules as well as the Council Regulation 2013 prescribe the same period of teaching experience of 4 years. However, under the Special Rules, such 4 years of experience must be obtained from a recognized Homoeopathic Medical College in Kerala or a recognized Government Homoeopathic Medical College in other States. Therefore, the Special Rules do not encourage experience certificates produced from Private Colleges. It is evident from the reply statement filed by the Principal and Controlling Officer of Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges in O.A.(EKM).No.675/2024 that the teaching experience certificates produced from unrecognized Private Colleges would adversely affect the quality of teaching in Homoeopathic Medical Education. The above mandate cannot be said to lower the standard of Homeopathy education; rather, it ensures that only highly qualified and experienced Post Graduate Homoeopathy Doctors who have worked [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:30:- 2025:KER:24315 in Government service enter the field of teaching. The insistence on registration with the Medical Council is to ensure that the candidates are accountable under the State laws and amenable to the State Council not only during the practice of Homoeopathy but also while working as an Associate Professor. These eligibility conditions actually would supplement the minimum eligibility qualifications set forth under the Central Regulation 2013.
25. In any challenge of a similar nature based on repugnancy or inconsistency, the Court will have to analyse whether both laws can coexist without adversely affecting the objectives of Union laws. If it does not result in an undesirable outcome, the State law prescribing the qualifications for eligibility criteria for recruitment must be allowed to operate.
(ii) Effect of State Law
26. The qualification prescribed by the State as part of the recruitment to the post of Associate Professor is in exercise of its power under the Kerala Public Services Act. This source of power is [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:31:- 2025:KER:24315 traceable to Article 309 of the Constitution read with Entry 41 in List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The State has exclusive authority to legislate on the subject related to the State Public Service. That includes conditions for recruitment and eligibility. The qualification prescribed, no doubt, would overlap with the authority of the Union to legislate on the same subject based on Entries 65 and 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
27. In a recent judgment, the Full Bench of this Court, in Ajal Ramakrishnan v. Athira I. C. [2024 (6) KHC 279], has held as follows:
"13. If the method of appointment would have a bearing on standards of learning to be imparted in technical education, the court cannot say that such a prescription of the method of appointment is beyond the power of AICTE. While, it may be true that AICTE Act does not explicitly grant authority to prescribe mode of appointment in technical institution, the AICTE believes that the method of appointment is integral to the quality of education to be imparted in a technical institution, the court cannot judicially review the wisdom of an expert body. As rightly noted in Haridas's case (supra) AICTE might have concluded that open selection through [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:32:- 2025:KER:24315 direct recruitment would attract more meritorious candidates than by transfer appointment. In direct recruitment, it is obvious that more opportunities will be available to consider a large number of meritorious candidates. In by transfer appointments, such consideration is restricted and limited to those who are in employment. Therefore we cannot per se say that the method of recruitment has no direct bearing on the standard of education. Therefore, we all are of the view that the method of appointment is inextricably connected with the standard or quality of education in technical institutions.
14. Under the Constitutional Scheme in the Concurrent List, the State is also competent to make laws under Entry 25 in regard to education including technical education subject to Entry 66 of List I. Viewed from that angle, any Rules made by the State invoking Entry 25 will be subject to laws made under the Central enactment.
15. Furthermore, laws made by the State under Entry 41 of List II (State List), which relate to State Public Service, may overlap with laws made by the Union. Although the State has the authority to enact laws, such laws may become repugnant if conflicts cannot be avoided. The essence of the regulations made by the AICTE is to maintain educational standards, while the laws made by the State establish recruitment policies. Although the objectives differ, conflicts are inevitable, resulting in unavoidable repugnancy. This repugnancy can arise from the facts of the situation. It need not be explicitly stated in the legislation; if the court finds, upon inquiry, that factual repugnancy exists, the inevitable consequence is that the applicable law may directly conflict with both parliamentary and State [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:33:- 2025:KER:24315 legislation."
28. The Apex Court in Jagdish Prasad Sharma and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [2013 KHC 4564], Vijayan v. State of Kerala [(2022) 17 SCC 177] and Dr. Prakasan v. State of Kerala [2023 (5) KLT 181 (SC)] has upheld the validity of State laws over Central laws while looking into the validity of the State rules fixing the age of retirement in variance of UGC regulations.
29. In cases where the operation of State law does not create a conflict with Union law, the two can coexist, with the State law supplementing the provisions of the Union law. In such a scenario, the qualifications prescribed under State law must be adhered to, as the State has exclusive authority to legislate on service conditions.
30. The Special Rules recognize the minimum qualifications prescribed by Union law while also introducing additional qualifications specific to the State, particularly in relation to public service appointments. Given this, the Public Service Commission [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:34:- 2025:KER:24315 (PSC) could not have disregarded the Special Rules, which govern the qualifications required for recruitment to the post of Associate Professor in State service.
31. The requirement for registration with the State Medical Council serves to uphold accountability under State law, though it is true that doctors registered outside the State may be ineligible to apply. There has been no challenge to the validity of the Special Rules. The key issue under consideration is whether these eligibility conditions dilute the standards set by the Council Regulation 2013.
32. If it is established that the Special Rules do not undermine Union law, the Court should recognize the validity of State law in governing public service recruitment, as it permits the coexistence of both Union and State laws. The primary objective of recruitment is to ensure that the most qualified candidate is selected for public service. The prescription of additional qualifications by the State serves this purpose.
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:35:- 2025:KER:24315
33. Any qualifications beyond those prescribed by Union law fall within the exclusive domain of the State. Therefore, the PSC cannot conduct recruitment to the State service while disregarding the Special Rules, which it is bound to follow. Since the Special Rules do not contravene Central Regulation 2013, no recruitment to State service can be carried out in violation of these rules.
34. Under Rule 2 of the Special Rules, it is prescribed as follows:
"2. Application of the provisions of these Rules. Application of the provisions of these rules shall be subject to the provisions of the regulations made by the Central Council of Homoeopathy under section 33 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (Central Act 59 of 1973) from time to time prescribing minimum qualifications for faculty (teaching staff), and if any inconsistency arises between the provision of these rules and the said regulations, the provision of the said regulations shall prevail."
35. Therefore, it was contended before us that the State law itself acknowledges the supremacy of law made by the Homoeopathy Council as it was stated in the Special Rules that provisions of this [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:36:- 2025:KER:24315 rule will be subject to minimum qualification prescribed by the Homoeopathy Council. This argument is legally unsustainable. It is specifically mentioned in the above rule that the Central Regulation 2013 will prevail if there is an inconsistency. This is a reiteration of the law under Article 254 of the Constitution. Since we have already found that there is no inconsistency or repugnancy, the operation of Rule 2 does not arise here. The Special Rules embody the minimum qualification as per the Council Regulation 2013. The purport of the rule is clear that any qualification prescribed by the Regulation will have to be followed, and that has been followed in the Special Rules.
(iii) Locus standi
36. There are two original petitions. OP (KAT) 496/2024 was filed by the applicant in O.A.(EKM) 675 of 2024. The petitioners are Assistant professors under the Homoeopathic Department. The next promotion post for them is Associate Professor. They have not applied under the original notification dated 16/8/2023. Their locus standi is questioned. According to them, their promotion chances will [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:37:- 2025:KER:24315 diminish if appointments are made pursuant to the impugned notification. Since they have not applied for the post of Associate Professor under the original notification, they are total strangers to the notification. They do not have any locus standi to question the erratum notification which was issued subsequently. The other original petition is O.P.(KAT) No. 470/2024. The petitioners3 3, 4, and 9 had applied for the post of Associate Professor under the original notification dated 16/8/2023. Therefore, the above applicants have the right to challenge the erratum notification.
(iv). Non joinder of parties.
37. The learned Standing Counsel for the PSC would contend that the petitioners had not chosen to implead the applicants in O.A.(EKM).No.1554/2023. The said original application was disposed of by the Tribunal without adjudication. There is nothing on the record to show that any of the rights are being affected consequent upon deciding this lis by this Court or the Tribunal. 3 Petitioners in O.P.(KAT) No. 470/2024 [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:38:- 2025:KER:24315 In the result;
O.P.(KAT).No.470/2024 is allowed, setting aside the impugned order and also setting aside the erratum notification dated 16/11/2023. PSC is directed to proceed with the original notification issued on 16/08/2023 and conclude the recruitment process.
O.P.(KAT) No. 496/2024 is dismissed as the petitioners have no locus standi to question the notification.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JUDGE ms [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:39:- 2025:KER:24315 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 470/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT CHART FOR ASSISTANT PROFESSOR IN MATERIA MEDICA DATED 23.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT INCLUDING 1ST APPLICANT (SI.NO 4), 3RD APPLICANT (SI.NO 1), AND 4TH APPLICANT (SI.NO 5).
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CATEGORY NO 168/2023 - 178/2023 FOR THE POST OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR/READER (IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS) IN GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGES. Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION (TEACHING) SERVICES SPECIAL RULES 2019 VIDE G.O.(P) NO. 6/2019/AYUSH DATED 11.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE AYUSH DEPARTMENT. Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.10.2023 IN VIVEK SAKTHIDHARAN AND ORS VS THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANR [OA(EKM) 1554/2023].
Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO. GR1 C1/3/2019-KPSC DATED 16.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN DR. KAVITHA THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANR [OP KAT NO.428/2023] DATED 19.09.2023.
Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (10TH SESSION, QUESTION NO. 2088) DATED 12.02.2024 BY THE CHIEF MINISTER.
Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE HOMOEOPATHY CENTRAL COUNCIL (MINIMUM STANDARDS REQUIREMENT OF HOMOEOPATHIC COLLEGES AND ATTACHED [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:40:- 2025:KER:24315 HOSPITALS) REGULATIONS 2013 VIDE NOTIFICATION NO.12-10/2000- CCH(PT.III) DATED 08.03.2013 ISSUED BY CENTRAL COUNCIL OF HOMOEOPATHY.
Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY 2ND APPLICANT AND OTHERS DATED 27.03.2024 BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVT. HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM. Annexure A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ARUN GOPINATHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [O.P.(KAT) NO.278 OF 2015] DATED 17.12.2015.
Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN UDAYAN VS. KERALA AGRO MACHINERY CORPORATION LTD [W.P.(C) NO. 2593 OF 2009] DATED 12.04.2011.
Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN SHABEER SHAJAHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS [W.P.(C) NO. 23714 OF 2019] DATED 19.06.2020. Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THOTE BHASKARA RAO VS A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (1987 SUPP SCC 587) DATED 25.11.1987 Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DR. (MAJOR) MEETA SAHAI VS STATE OF BIHAR [(2019) 20 SCC 17] DATED 17.12.2019.
Annexure A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN SUNIT KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR [2016 SCC ONLINE P&H 2427] DATED 05.01.2016.
Annexure A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE [(2019) 6 SCC 362] DATED 03.05.2019.
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OA 1638/2024 FILED BY THE [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:41:- 2025:KER:24315 PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.10.2024 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 1638/2024 OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.10.2024 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN OA(EKM) 675/2024 DATED 02.08.2024. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN OA(EKM) 675/2024 DATED 24.09.2024. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN OA [EKM] 675/2024 DATED 24.09.2024. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMOEOPATHY (MINIMUM ESSENTIAL STANDARDS FOR HOMOEOPATHIC COLLEGES AND ATTACHED HOSPITALS) REGULATIONS 2024 DATED 11.03.2024. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KERALA STATE MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS ACT, 2021 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 14.11.2021.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY NO:
112/2021 - 121/2021 DATED 30.04.2021 IN AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY NO:
146/2017 IN MEDICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DATED 30.05.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN SMT. GRACE GEORGE THANDIAKKAL VS. STATE OF KERALA [WP(C).NO. 18401 OF 2010(A)] DATED 23.09.2010 Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION V. SANDEEP SHRIRAM WARADE [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4597 OF 2019] DATED 03.05.2019.
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:42:- 2025:KER:24315 Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GAJANAN BABULAL BANSODE AND ORS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2021] DECIDED ON 05.02.2021.
Exhibit P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ANUJ V.T. AND ORS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS [OP(KAT) NO. 115 OF 2023] DECIDED ON 04.10.2024.
Exhibit P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ADVERTISEMENT NO. 01/2023 VACANCY NOTIFICATION FOR DIRECT RECRUITMENT ISSUED BY NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HOMOEOPATHY Exhibit P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM IN CRIMINAL M.P.NO. 2006 OF 2017 DATED 16.10.2018 Exhibit P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AJITH G. DAS & ORS VS. THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS [SLP(C) NOS. 10155-10156 OF 2024] DATED 19.12.2024 [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:43:- 2025:KER:24315 APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) 496/2024 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THROUGH AN EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 25.08.2020.
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.985/E1/2024/GHMCT DATED 24.04.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MAIN RANK LIST NO.
298/2024/SS VI PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA STATE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL EDUCATION (TEACHING RULES) SERVICES SPECIAL RULES 2019 PUBLISHED AS PER GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 11.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE AYUSH DEPARTMENT, GOVT OF KERALA.
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO. GR1 C1/3/2019-KPSC DATED 16.11.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY JUDGMENT IN OP KAT NO.428/2023 DATED 19.09.2023 OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. Annexure A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO QUESTIONS RAISED IN THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (10TH SESSION, QUESTION NO. 2088) DATED 12.02.2024.
Annexure A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2023 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA EKM NO.1554/2023.
Annexure A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMOEOPATHY (MINIMUM ESSENTIAL STANDARDS FOR HOMOEOPATHIC COLLEGES AND ATTACHED HOSPITALS) REGULATIONS, 2024.
[OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:44:- 2025:KER:24315 Annexure A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 30.12.2023 FOR THE POST OF PROFESSOR IN VARIOUS SUBJECTS OF HOMEOPATHY ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Annexure A12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXAM SCHEDULE FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2024 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A13 THE TRUE COPY OF HOMEOPATHIC CENTRAL COUNCIL (MINIMUM STANDARD REQUIREMENT OF HOMEOPATHIC COLLEGES AND ATTACHED HOSPITALS) REGULATIONS 2013.
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.(EKM) NO. 675/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.05.2024. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 675/2024 DATED 24.09.2024.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 675/2024 DATED 02.08.2024.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 675/2024 DATED 24.09.2024.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MA(EKM) NO. 1279/2024 IN O.A.(EKM) NO. 675/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.08.2024.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R7(a) A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 18.3.2024 OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HOMOEOPATHY Exhibit R7(b) A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.11.2024 IN W.P.(C) 37640/2024 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT [OP(KAT) Nos.496/2024 & 470/2024] -:45:- 2025:KER:24315 Exhibit R7(c) A COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO. 432/2024 AYUSH DATED 12.11.2024 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit P12(a) A copy of the Selection Notification dated 30.12.2023 for the post of Professor in Government Homoeopathic Medical Colleges issued by the 1st respondent herein Exhibit P12(b) A copy of the Appointment Chart issued by the 1st respondent with respect to the post of Professor in Pathology and Microbiology