Supreme Court Rules on Appointment Dispute in Kerala’s Indian System of Medicine Department

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a critical judgment in the case of The Director of Indian System of Medicine & Anr. v. Dr. Susmi C.T. & Ors., addressing a dispute over the reporting of vacancies for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurveda) in Kerala’s Indian System of Medicine Department. The judgment overturned the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) and High Court orders, ruling that the department had correctly reported vacancies and was not obligated to fill additional positions beyond the officially sanctioned strength.

Background of the Case

The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) issued a notification on 19 November 2014, inviting applications for Medical Officer (Ayurveda) positions. The respondents, including Dr. Susmi C.T., applied and were included in the ranked list published on the same day. Under KPSC rules, the department was required to report all vacancies that arose during the tenure of the ranked list.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/up-state-road-transport-corporation-vs-gajadhar-nath-supreme-court-upholds-conductors-dismissal/

On 14 November 2017, the respondents approached the KAT, alleging that 65 vacancies had not been reported before the expiry of the ranked list on 18 November 2017. The KAT, based on an interim order dated 14 November 2017, directed the department to report 28 additional vacancies.

The Kerala government challenged this order, arguing that all vacancies had been duly reported. However, the High Court dismissed the government’s petition, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Appellants (State of Kerala)

• All vacancies arising during the tenure of the ranked list had been reported, with 158 candidates advised for appointment.
• The department’s affidavit confirmed that only five vacancies remained unfilled as they were reserved for candidates with disabilities.
• The KAT erred in assuming that promotions of Senior Medical Officers automatically created additional vacancies.
• The High Court wrongly dismissed the government’s petition on procedural grounds without considering the merits.

Arguments by the Respondents (Dr. Susmi C.T. & Others)

• The department failed to report 28 vacancies that arose due to promotions in June 2017.
• Under Rule 14 of the Kerala Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, all vacancies occurring during the tenure of a ranked list must be reported.
• The KAT and High Court correctly interpreted the rules and ensured fair appointments.
• The government’s appeal should be dismissed to uphold the rights of eligible candidates.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Ruling

• The Court held that the department had reported all vacancies and the KAT erred in assuming otherwise.
• It emphasized that promotions do not automatically create new vacancies unless explicitly sanctioned by the government.
• The High Court’s dismissal of the government’s petition on procedural grounds was incorrect, as the issue had significant ramifications.
• The right of candidates in a ranked list is limited to reported vacancies and does not extend to positions that are not formally declared vacant.

Quoting its observations, the Supreme Court stated:

“The right of those in a ranked list extends only to reported vacancies. In the absence of evidence that vacancies were suppressed, the Tribunal’s direction to report additional vacancies was erroneous.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-reinstates-disciplinary-action-against-bsf-officer-in-sexual-misconduct-case/

The Court set aside the High Court and KAT orders, ruling that no additional vacancies needed to be reported.

Key Legal Precedents Considered

• Shankersan Dash v. Union of India – Held that being on a ranked list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment.
• State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav – Emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural rules in public employment.
• Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority – Reinforced that government decisions should be based on documented evidence and not assumptions.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court and KAT orders, ruling in favor of the Kerala government. The decision reinforced the principle that appointments in public services must strictly adhere to procedural rules and reported vacancies.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-dismisses-review-petition-in-rajasthan-judicial-officers-seniority-dispute/

Petitioner Name: The Director of Indian System of Medicine & Anr..
Respondent Name: Dr. Susmi C.T. & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, Justice Bela M. Trivedi.
Place Of Incident: Kerala.
Judgment Date: 08-12-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-director-of-indi-vs-dr.-susmi-c.t.-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-12-2021.pdf