SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Dr. Divya Sadasivan, W/o. Dr. Premjith – Appellant 
Versus 
State Of Kerala – Respondent 
OP(KAT) No. 380 of 2025
Decided on : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : SHRI.SAJU JOHN, SRI.V.VARGHESE, SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
For the Respondent: SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR. GP.

The irrevocable nature of options under the Special Rules must be upheld, allowing placement in the Speciality Cadre after acquiring additional qualifications as per specified conditions.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Special Rules, 2010 - Challenge to the placement in Speciality Cadre. The petitioner contended that after opting for Administrative Cadre, further options for placement in the Speciality Cadre are not permissible as per Rule 6 of the Special Rules. The Tribunal held that the options for placement under the Special Rules were valid and conferred the right for one-time option under Rule 10 to shift to Speciality Cadre after obtaining qualifications. The petitioner’s relinquishment letters were deemed inappropriate under the Special Rules. (Paras 2, 8, 14, and 16)

(B) The irrevocability of options exercised under the Special Rules is emphasized, framing the principle that once a medical officer opts for a cadre—General or Administrative—this option is definitive and cannot be rescinded lightly, especially post-specialization. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having opted for the Administrative Cadre, contested her mandatory placement in the Speciality Cadre after obtaining her Post Graduate Diploma, arguing previous irreversible decisions. The Tribunal dismissed her application stating the options were valid under the Special Rules.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's order is validated as it maintained compliance with the Special Rules and addressed the complexity of options under differing circumstances of qualification.

Issues: The primary issue revolved around the validity of the petitioner’s relinquishment letters and options exercised under the Special Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal's ruling clarified that a medical officer—a one-time irrevocable option under Rule 6 does not invalidate subsequent rights under Rule 10 of the Special Rules regarding re-categorization based on qualifications.

Result: Original petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The applicant in O.A.No.518 of 2025 on the file of Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the Tribunal in that original application.

2. Going by the averments in the original application, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department as per Annexure A1 appointment order dated 10.02.2006 of the 2nd respondent Director of Health Services, and she joined duty on 16.02.2016. The petitioner submitted option for placement to the administrative cadre- Branch A as prescribed under Rule 5 of Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010 (‘Special Rules’ in short), which came into force with effect from 01.01.2007, by virtue of Annexure A2 Government Order dated 17.02.2010. The petitioner was accordingly included in the seniority list of the administrative cadre and placed as Junior Administrative Medical Officer as per Annexure A3 order of the 2nd respondent dated 12.10.2015. She was undergoing her Post Graduation Diploma in Orthopaedics at the relevant time and therefore, she was allowed to continue her Post Graduation course. She rejoined duty after completing Post Graduation on 08.07.2016. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant Director of Health Services as per Annexure A4 order dated 11.10.2017.

2.1. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted option for placement to Branch C Speciality cadre for a posting as Junior Consultant in Orthopaedics. However, she was not given placement in the Speciality Cadre as her turn did not arise for a period of 8 years. Now the 2nd respondent issued Annexure A5 circular dated 15.03.2025, including the petitioner in the list of Medical Officers eligible for placement as Junior Consultant in Orthopaedics as Sl.No.1 and required her to submit relevant certificates to prove the qualification on or before 20.03.2025 through proper channel. Contending that the petitioner, who has been performing the duties and responsibilities of her posts in the Administrative branch for the last eight years is out of touch with the clinical and surgical aspects of Orthopaedics, she submitted Annexures A6 and A7 relinquishment letters dated 17.03.2025 before the 1st and 2nd respondents, temporarily relinquishing her right for placement as Junior Consultant in Orthopaedics in the Speciality Cadre for a period of one year and requested to exempt her being considered for placement under Speciality Cadre for the time being. Apprehending that the petitioner will be placed in the Speciality Cadre without submitting any of the documents as required in Annexure A5 circular and disciplinary proceedings will be initiated against her for not submitting such documents, she approached the Tribunal with the original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking a declaration that the petitioner is not liable to be placed as Junior Consultant in Orthopaedics under the Speciality Cadre in Branch C as she was already placed in the Administrative cadre - Branch A through Annexure A3 order and she has no further option for placement in any other Branch as per Special Rules and consequently to set aside the proceedings that places the petitioner in the Speciality Cadre - Branch C.

3. In the O.A., the 2nd respondent filed a statement dated 28.03.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the original application. It is contended by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner had studied her PG Course under Health Services Departmental Quota for the year 2014 by availing the deputation benefit as per Annexure R2(a) Government Order dated 08.03.2016. As per Annexure R2(b) Order dated 14.08.2017, the Government has directed that those who availed deputation benefits shall immediately, after completion of deputation (Service Quota PG) opt the Specia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top