Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in W.A. Nos. 133 and 155 of 2023, by a common judgment dated 12 June 2025, dismissed two writ appeals filed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge which had directed the Government to reconsider the petitioners’ claim for re-designation as Assistant Professors post their MCH/DM degrees. The Court held that:
“In the absence of challenge to the Government Order dated 14.03.2023, no relief can be granted to the appellants at this stage.”
The appellants were granted liberty to challenge the said Government Order in appropriate proceedings, and all contentions were left open.
Facts
The writ appeals arose from the judgment dated 16.12.2022 in WP(C) Nos. 6122 and 38205 of 2022, where a group of doctors who had completed their DM/MCH super specialty courses under bond obligations sought re-designation as Assistant Professors and claimed salary benefits accordingly. The learned Single Judge had directed the Government to reconsider their case after hearing them, and in light of the National Medical Commission (NMC) advisories and applicable regulations.
However, following this order, the Government, by order dated 14.03.2023, rejected their claims. This rejection was not directly challenged before the Division Bench in the present writ appeals.
Issues
- Whether the learned Single Judge erred in remanding the matter to the Government instead of granting direct relief?
- Whether the writ appeals survive after the Government’s rejection order dated 14.03.2023?
- Whether appellants are entitled to be re-designated and paid as Assistant Professors based on NMC advisories and regulations?
Petitioners’ Arguments
The appellants contended that the learned Single Judge had already concluded that they were entitled to re-designation and salary benefits under the Teachers Eligibility Qualifications in Medical Institutions Regulations, 2022 and relevant advisories from the NMC. Therefore, the Judge ought to have granted them direct relief rather than relegating the matter to the State Government. They argued that remanding the matter served no purpose and sought a direction for implementation by the Regional Cancer Centre.
Respondents’ Arguments
The Government opposed the relief, arguing that in compliance with the Single Judge’s order, a detailed Government Order was issued on 14.03.2023 rejecting the appellants’ claims. Since this rejection order was not under challenge before the Division Bench, the writ appeals had become infructuous. It was further submitted that the rejection gave rise to a fresh cause of action which the appellants could pursue independently.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the procedural and legal implications of not challenging the Government Order dated 14.03.2023. It found that the rejection decision represented a new and independent cause of action. The Division Bench refrained from deciding the correctness of the earlier judgment in the absence of a challenge to the subsequent Government Order, adhering to established principles of judicial discipline and procedural propriety.
Precedent Analysis
No external precedents were cited. However, the Court relied on its own prior interim order dated 24.01.2023, which permitted the Government to proceed with the implementation of the Single Judge’s direction but without it being considered a final determination against the appellants. This procedural safeguard allowed the Government to issue the 14.03.2023 rejection order.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that:
- The appellants had not challenged the 14.03.2023 Government Order rejecting their representation.
- As such, no relief could be granted in the current appeals.
- The Single Judge’s observations would not bind future proceedings challenging the Government Order.
The Court therefore left all issues open to be raised afresh in appropriate proceedings.
Conclusion
The writ appeals were disposed of with the clarification that the appellants are free to challenge the Government Order dated 14.03.2023 separately. All issues were left open.
Implications
This judgment underscores the critical importance of procedural strategy in administrative litigation. Even where an earlier court order is partially favourable, failure to directly challenge subsequent adverse orders can render appeals infructuous. The judgment also clarifies that Single Judge observations in a remanded matter will not prejudice fresh adjudication when new orders are passed. The ruling preserves the appellants’ substantive rights but requires them to initiate new proceedings.
Summary of Referred Cases
No external judgments were referred to in this matter. The Court relied entirely on:
- Its own interim order dated 24.01.2023, which permitted the Government to proceed without prejudice.
- The final Government Order dated 14.03.2023, which became the factual pivot of the appeals’ dismissal.
Also Read: Supreme Court Holds Deemed Closure Valid Where No Proper Order Issued by Competent Authority
