W.A. No. 10 of 2010. Case: Dr. B. Venugopal and Dr. K.B. Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala, Director, State Programme Manager and Central Council of Homoeopathy. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | W.A. No. 10 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: P.B. Sahasranaman, Adv. And For Respondents: No Appearance |
| Judges | K. Balakrishnan Nair and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. |
| Issue | Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 - Section 15(2); Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 |
| Judgement Date | January 06, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
K. Balakrishnan Nair, J., (At Ernakulam)
1. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The writ petition was filed by them, challenging Ext.P3 notification issued by the second respondent, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Medical Officers in Homoeopathy. The opening portion of Ext.P3 would show that the applications were invited for appointment on contract basis. The general conditions which form part of Ext.P3 stipulate that the recruitment is for a period of three months, which may be extended based on the performance of the candidate. The said notification says that for the post of Medical Officer (Homoeopathy), only bachelors degree holders in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery are entitled to apply. The appellants are Diploma holders in Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery. Therefore, they are ineligible as per Ext.P3 notification to apply for the post. According to the appellants, Section 15(2) of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act provides that any person who is having a recognized medical qualification and registration with the State/Central Council of Homoeopathy, is entitled to hold the office of Homoeopathic physician under the Government and other local bodies, whatever be the designation of that post. Since the appellants are having recognized qualification and registration with the Travancore-Cochin Council of Homoeopathic Medicine, they are entitled to work as Medical Officers (Homoeopathy), notified under Ext.P3. So, they should not have been excluded, it is submitted. But, the learned Single Judge declined to accept this contention and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal.
2. We heard the learned Counsel Sri. P.B. Sahasranaman for the appellants. He brought to our notice Section 15(2) of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. The said Section reads as follows:
15. Right of persons possessing qualifications included in Second or the Third Schedule to be enrolled--
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) No person, other than a practitioner of Homoeopathy who possesses a recognized...
To continue reading
Request your trial