Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 26 August 2025. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner’s plea to remain in the Administrative Cadre despite earlier opting for transfer to the Speciality Cadre in Orthopaedics after availing government deputation benefits for postgraduate study.
The Court held that once a Medical Officer exercises an option under the Special Rules for placement in a Speciality Cadre, such an option becomes irrevocable. Furthermore, those who have availed deputation benefits for postgraduate education are mandatorily required to opt for the relevant Speciality Cadre immediately after completion of their course.
Reaffirming the binding effect of Rule 10 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010, the Bench observed:
“Rule 10 provides a one-time special right for Medical Officers who acquire postgraduate qualifications while in service to opt to the Speciality Cadre, irrespective of the post they are holding. Having exercised that right, they cannot later resile from it.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the original petition, upholding the Tribunal’s order and finding no illegality or perversity in its reasoning.
Facts
The petitioner, a Medical Officer in the Kerala Health Services Department, had initially been appointed as Assistant Surgeon through an order dated 10 February 2006. As per Rule 5 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010, she exercised her option to join the Administrative Cadre (Branch A), and was placed as a Junior Administrative Medical Officer in October 2015.
While working in this cadre, she pursued a Postgraduate Diploma in Orthopaedics under the Health Department’s Service Quota, availing deputation benefits as per a Government Order dated 8 March 2016 (Annexure R2(a)). Upon completing her course, she rejoined duty on 8 July 2016 and was promoted as Assistant Director of Health Services in 2017.
Subsequently, relying on her postgraduate qualification, the petitioner submitted an option to move to the Speciality Cadre (Branch C) as a Junior Consultant in Orthopaedics. However, her turn for placement came up only in 2025, when the Director of Health Services issued a circular listing her as the first eligible candidate for placement.
At that stage, she submitted two relinquishment letters dated 17 March 2025 (Annexures A6 and A7), expressing her unwillingness to shift to the Speciality Cadre, citing that she had been away from clinical practice for eight years and was performing administrative duties.
Apprehending that she would still be forcibly placed in the Speciality Cadre and subjected to disciplinary action for not furnishing her qualification documents, she approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking a declaration that her option to move to the Speciality Cadre was void and that her continued service in the Administrative Cadre be protected.
Issues
- Whether a Medical Officer who has already opted for placement in one cadre (Administrative) can later exercise another option to move to a Speciality Cadre after obtaining postgraduate qualifications.
- Whether the petitioner could validly relinquish placement in the Speciality Cadre after having exercised such option and availed deputation benefits.
- Whether Rule 38 of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (KS&SSR) applies to such relinquishment despite the Special Rules of 2010.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the option for change of cadre can be exercised only once under Rule 6 of the Special Rules, and having already opted for the Administrative Cadre, she could not be compelled to move to the Speciality Cadre. Her subsequent option for the Speciality Cadre, made in 2017, was described as a “mistaken second option”, which should not bind her.
She further contended that there cannot be an estoppel against a statutory rule, and hence, an erroneous option contrary to Rule 6 cannot have legal effect. According to her, Rule 10 of the Special Rules, which provides for placement in the Speciality Cadre for those acquiring postgraduate qualifications, is only a concession, not a mandate. It cannot be used to compel a doctor to move out of the Administrative Cadre when she has lost clinical exposure over years of administrative work.
The petitioner also relied on earlier Tribunal orders in O.A. Nos. 300 and 392 of 2024, where doctors who had relinquished placement were granted relief under Rule 38 of Part II KS&SSR, permitting relinquishment of promotion or appointment. She argued that the same principle should apply in her case.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Government and Director of Health Services contended that the petitioner’s claim was untenable in view of Rule 10 of the 2010 Special Rules, which mandates that Medical Officers who acquire postgraduate qualifications while in service must opt for the Speciality Cadre.
They emphasized that as per Clause 10 of Government Order dated 14 August 2017 (Annexure R2(b)), those who availed deputation benefits for postgraduate studies are compelled to opt for the relevant Speciality Cadre immediately upon completion of their course, failing which their deputation period would not count for pension or service benefits.
The respondents maintained that Rule 6 of the Special Rules, which makes the option once exercised final, applies only to the initial probationary option under Rule 5. The later special provision under Rule 10 creates an additional one-time right for officers acquiring postgraduate qualifications, irrespective of their current posting. Therefore, the petitioner’s reliance on Rule 6 was misplaced.
The State also submitted that the Tribunal’s earlier ruling in O.A. Nos. 300 and 392 of 2024 had been set aside by the High Court in O.P.(KAT) Nos. 420 and 422 of 2024 through judgment dated 19 March 2025, wherein it was clarified that placement cannot be relinquished under Rule 38 KS&SSR when the Special Rules explicitly govern the matter.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench analyzed Rules 5, 6, and 10 of the Kerala Health Services (Medical Officers) Special Rules, 2010, and the Government Order dated 14 August 2017 (Annexure R2(b)).
- Rule 5: Allows Assistant Surgeons to exercise an option during probation for placement in the Administrative, Speciality, or Public Health Cadres.
- Rule 6: States that once an option is exercised, it shall be final.
- Rule 10: Provides a special one-time right for officers in Administrative/General Cadres who later acquire postgraduate qualifications to opt for the Speciality Cadre, with protection of pay and allowances.
The Court emphasized that Rule 10 is not subordinate to Rule 5; rather, it is a distinct enabling provision intended to facilitate cadre change for officers who gain higher qualifications mid-service. Therefore, an officer’s earlier option under Rule 5 does not preclude the subsequent exercise of the special option under Rule 10.
Further, the Government Order of 2017 reinforced this principle by mandating that all Medical Officers availing deputation for postgraduate studies must join the relevant Speciality Cadre, ensuring that public investment in their higher training benefits the healthcare system.
The Court clarified that the option exercised under Rule 10 is binding and irrevocable, and relinquishment under Rule 38 KS&SSR is not applicable when the Special Rules expressly govern the situation.
Precedent Analysis
- Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 – The Court referred to this decision to outline the scope of interference under Article 227, holding that High Courts can intervene only when findings are perverse or based on no evidence
- O.P.(KAT) Nos. 420 and 422 of 2024 (Kerala HC) – These connected cases set aside Tribunal orders allowing relinquishment of placement under Rule 38 KS&SSR, holding that such relinquishment is impermissible where Special Rules provide otherwise.
The High Court in the present case relied on these precedents to affirm the binding nature of the Special Rules and to reject the petitioner’s plea for a discretionary exception.
Court’s Reasoning
The Division Bench observed that the petitioner’s argument misconstrued the interplay between Rule 6 and Rule 10. While Rule 6 applies to the initial cadre option, Rule 10 operates as a distinct special provision for officers acquiring higher qualifications.
The Bench noted that the petitioner availed deputation benefits, completed postgraduate training at government expense, and subsequently submitted an option for placement in the Speciality Cadre. Having enjoyed the privileges of deputation, she could not later “disown” the obligation under the 2017 Government Order.
The Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was consistent with statutory rules and precedents, and therefore, no interference was warranted under Article 227. The judgment concluded that:
“Having exercised the special right under Rule 10 to move to the Speciality Cadre, the petitioner cannot now contend that such a move violates Rule 6. The two provisions operate in different fields.”
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s decision. The Bench confirmed that:
- Rule 10 grants a one-time opportunity for officers who acquire postgraduate qualifications while in service to join the Speciality Cadre.
- Rule 6 applies only to the initial probationary option and does not bar subsequent movement under Rule 10.
- Officers who avail deputation for postgraduate studies are obliged to join the Speciality Cadre corresponding to their specialization.
The Court found no illegality or perversity in the Tribunal’s order and held that the petitioner’s relinquishment letters were invalid, as Rule 38 KS&SSR does not apply where Special Rules prevail.
Implications
This judgment clarifies the hierarchy between general and special service rules in the medical administrative framework. It affirms that government doctors who receive deputation benefits for postgraduate study are mandatorily required to serve in their specialized field, ensuring public investment in medical education translates to better public health outcomes.
The ruling also reinforces the finality of cadre options once exercised under the Special Rules and limits the scope of judicial review under Article 227.
FAQs
1. Can a doctor who availed deputation benefits refuse to join the Speciality Cadre?
No. Once a doctor avails deputation for postgraduate study, the Government Order and Rule 10 make it mandatory to join the relevant Speciality Cadre.
2. Is Rule 38 KS&SSR applicable for relinquishment of placement under the Special Rules?
No. The High Court held that Rule 38 cannot override specific provisions under the 2010 Special Rules.
3. Does Rule 6 bar all subsequent cadre changes?
No. Rule 6 governs only the initial probationary option, whereas Rule 10 creates a separate right for those acquiring postgraduate qualifications later in service.
