bottom

original petition

SYNOPSIS

The WP pertains to the ill-treatment being meted out to the petitioner over the years by his superiors in Medical College, Trivandrum.

The petitioner, an ex-service man, started his teaching career in T.D.Medical College, Alleppey in August 1993 where he spent a most rewarding two years. The petitioner shifted to Medical College, Trivandrum in may 1995 as lecturer trainee on being selected for the M.D., course in Physiology. In sharp contrast to his experience in Alleppey, in the vicious atmosphere in Medical College, Trivandrum every thing goes topsy-turvy The petitioner attributes this to a sharp difference in the professional ethics in the two establishments.

As part of an attempt by the vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum to spoil the petitioner's career and future prospects, an effort was made to deny the lecturer trainee post to the petitioner. Upon this attempt being foiled by the kind intervention of the then Health Secretary, adverse remarks were made without any justification in the petitioner's confidential report (CR) for the year 1996. This was followed by a malicious slander campaign over the years, making it impossible for the petitioner to function in the set up. As a result the petitioners career and life is in jeopardy.

The petitioner after exhausting all official channels resorts to litigation. In view of the inaction on the part of the Director of Medical Education, Kerala (DME) on the petitioner's representation on the adverse remarks in his CR, the petitioner moves the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In response to the directions of the Hon'ble Court in OP No. 30121 of 2002 the DME issues orders rejecting the petitioner's representation.

The petitioner challenges the DME's above decision in WP No. 34353 of 2003. The Hon'ble Court quashes the orders of the DME and commands the DME to take a dispassionate decision on the matter.

The DME for a second time rejects the petitioner's representation. The petitioner most humbly contends that the decision of the DME is biased and taken with ulterior motives and is neither legally, nor morally correct and prays that the above orders of the DME may please be quashed.

The petitioner disproves all the justifications for the adverse remarks made by the reporting officer. Also, the petitioner humbly contends that the CR itself is fatally flawed.

With hindsight the petitioner's feels that it is futile to expect justice from the authorities in the medical education set up. The petitioner there fore most respectfully begs this Hon'ble Court to quash the flawed CR as such.

The petitioner further begs to submit that thanks to the smear campaign and the covert activities orchestrated over the years by the successive Heads of the Department of Physiology and other vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum the petitioner's career is in shambles and he is living the life of a pariah. As matters stand, the petitioner with his imminent retirement from service is standing at cross roads facing a bleak future and that in order to survive the petitioner has to shake off the stigma and regain his lost reputation.

The petitioner is confident of exposing and disproving the Trivandrum Medical College authorities on his own. However in a denial of natural justice, the petitioner is being sidelined on false pretexts and ex-party decisions are being taken on matters pertaining to the petitioner.

The petitioner there fore begs this Hon'ble Court to order the discovery of documents pertaining to the petitioner's case so that the petitioner can take things to their logical conclusion.

The petitioner most respectfully prays for urgent interim orders in view of his his imminent retirement from service.

Dated this, the 19th day of February 2004.

(Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi )
Petitioner

full text



Statement of Facts

The above named petitioner begs to submit as follows:

1. The petitioner, a medical graduate who got admission to the M.B.,B.S., course purely on the basis of academic merit, was given an appointment as Lecturer in Physiology in the Medical Education Service of the Hon'ble Government of Kerala in 1983, being duly selected for the above post by the Kerala Public Service Commission. The petitioner had by then joined the Indian Army as a Short Service Commissioned Officer in the Army Medical Corps. The Hon'ble Government of Kerala was kind enough to grant the petitioner time till the completion of his tenure in the army for joining the post of lecturer. On release from the army after successful completion of the contractual period of ten years, for the last five years of which he was holding the rank of a Major, the petitioner joined duty as Lecturer in the Dept. of Physiology of T.D.Medical College, Alleppy in August 1993.

2. The petitioner spent an enjoyable and most rewarding period of nearly two years teaching Human Physiology, both theory and practicals, to the first M.B.,B.S., students of T.D.Medical College, Alleppy. During this period the petitioner was actively involved in all aspects of teaching including setting up of question papers, conduct of examinations and even evaluation of the answer papers, and the petitioner had performed all the duties entrusted to him to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.

3. Spurred on by his successes in Alleppey which acted as a morale booster for the petitioner who was a novice at teaching, the petitioner made efforts to update his knowledge in human Physiology, a field of science that is making tremendous strides almost daily, in order to be able do better justice to his students. Based on his performance at the entrance examination for post graduate courses in the medical colleges in Kerala, the petitioner managed to get selection for the M.D., degree course in Physiology. On the basis of a verbal assurance from the then Director of Medical Education, Kerala (DME) that the petitioner was eligible for appointment as lecturer trainee in Physiology, he joined the M.D., course in the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum in May 1995. The path was now open for the petitioner to go ahead and complete the postgraduate course which would have brought him almost immediate promotion to the next grade and brightened the petitioner's prospects.

4. After joining the course the petitioner started his work in right earnest from the very beginning and had some remarkable successes to begin with. The project mooted by the petitioner for the M.D., thesis work with the kind guidance of a research professor in a neighbouring institution was approved by two reviewing bodies of the Hon'ble Government of Kerala after scrutiny by experts in the field. The Science Technology and Environment Committee of the Hon'ble Government of Kerala was kind enough to award a research grant of rupees twenty five thousand to the petitioner for the above project.

5. To the petitioner's misfortune he found the atmosphere in the Department of Physiology in Medical College, Trivandrum extremely vicious. From the very beginning the petitioner was putting up with the most humiliating and embarrassing situations in the Department and he was eagerly looking forward to going back to T. D. Medical College, Alleppey as soon as the course was over. However this was not to be.

6. The petitioner had the first major shock when the Director of Medical Education, Kerala who had initially assured that the petitioner will be given an appointment as lecturer trainee as soon as a vacancy arose, had, for reasons best known to the DME, a change of mind and said that the petitioner will not be appointed as lecturer trainee. As far as the petitioner was concerned, the lecturer trainee appointment where by one can work as lecturer and earn a salary and at the same time do the post graduate course was a prerequisite for doing the M.D., course, for the petitioner did not have the where-withal to carry him through the three year course without a salary.

7. If the authorities in the Medical education service in Trivandrum had their way, the dreams of the petitioner of doing a post graduate degree course would have been over at this stage itself. However a senior IAS officer came to the petitioner's rescue. The then Health Secretary to the Government of Kerala, convinced of the facts of the case by the petitioner, over ruled the Director of Medical Education and issued orders directing the DME to appoint the petitioner as lecturer trainee, which the DME after a certain amount of hesitation did.

8. During the year 1996 the petitioner had performed all the duties allotted to him in Medical College, Trivandrum sincerely and to the best of his ability. The petitioner firmly believes that there was no ground whatsoever for making adverse remarks in the confidential report (CR) on him for the year 1996 which incidentally is the basic reason for this litigation. As a member of the teaching faculty the petitioner felt that his first responsibility was towards the students and the petitioner had done every thing possible within his limited means to improve the standards of teaching. Solely with this aspect in mind the petitioner had suggested changes in the functioning of the set up. However these suggestions were never taken in the right spirit. Human Physiology is a scientific discipline where there is no place for dogmas. It is a fact that some time in mid 1997, after the departmental authorities refused to act on the matter, the petitioner had written a couple of letters about some unscientific and unhealthy practices being followed in the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum. The petitioner begs to point out to the Hon'ble Court that the communications were made in mid 1997; also the practices referred to by him in the above communications have since been abolished.

9. Mean while the atmosphere in the department was becoming more and more vicious and day by day life was becoming more and more miserable. The petitioner faced the situation with fortitude and held on taking consolation from the fact that it was for a couple of years more and gradually started withdrawing into his shell. However, when some time in late September 1997, the petitioner was given the CR form for the year 1996 the petitioner made a casual reference to the circumstances in the department in the self assessment part of the confidential report. A copy of the petitioner's self assessment (1996) dated 23rd September 1997, is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P1. The Reporting Officer's response was a memo dated 09 october 97 , copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P2 starting with the words " during the past 1½ years of your working in this department - - - - " ( italics petitioner's) where in the Reporting Officer for the first time accuses the petitioner of all the bad qualities referred to in the adverse remarks in the CR at a later date. The petitioner, vide his letter no. mes/015-a/97 dated 11 october 97 copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P3 denied all the allegations made in the above memo.

10. During the second half of the month of october 1997 the petitioner was shown the confidential report (CR ) on him for the year 1996 which the Reporting Officer had written. The petitioner refused to sign the document as it has not been reviewed.

11. As found out by the petitioner at a later date, instead of being shown to the petitioner after getting the Reviewing Officer's remarks, the CR with the adverse remarks found its way to the petitioner's dossier in the directorate of medical education. The petitioner pursued the matter and persisted with it and as per the directions of the DME vide their letter No. G. 3/2489/98/DME dated 05 march 98, copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P4, and signed the CR in front of the Administrative Officer of the Medical Education Directorate in his office on 08 may 98. The petitioner's request for a photocopy of the document was denied.

12. The petitioner was awarded grade C in 4 (four) items and grade D in 1½(one and a half)items. The petitioner felt that the CR did not reflect the correct state of affairs, and that the adverse remarks were made on account of intense prejudices and other reasons intended to spoil the entire career of the petitioner.


As such the petitioner resorted to the only mode of getting the injustice rectified by making a representation to the DME against the adverse remarks in the CR vide letter no. mes/021-a/98 dated 22nd may 98, copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P5 .

13. The DME obstinately refused to take any decision on the representation for more than four years but

ultimately in response to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP no. 30121 of 2002 came out with a pretext of a decision vide their No. G3/21700/2000/DME dated 21.1.2003, rejecting the petitioner's representation on flimsy grounds.

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala quashed the above order of the DME vide the judgment in WP no. 34353 of 2003and commanded the Director of Medical Education, Kerala to re-examine the matter dispassionately and pass orders within one month.

The DME has responded to the above directions of the Hon'ble Court at the last moment and again rejects the petitioner's representation vide their no. G3/21700/2000/DME dated 03.01.04 copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P6. The petitioner's humble submission on the matter is that the decision of the DME to reject the petitioner's representation is biased and taken with ulterior motives and is neither legally, nor morally correct. The petitioner vide his letter no.04/0100a/mess/ dated 11 january 2004 copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P7, represented to the DME requesting a reconsideration of the decision to which there has been no response.

14. Further to and in connection with the matter of the adverse remarks in the CR, the petitioner most respectfully begs to state that the adverse entries in the CR in question and the earlier efforts to deny the lecturer trainee post to the petitioner were just the tip of the ice-berg of a vicious attempt on the part of the authorities in Medical College, Trivandrum to spoil the petitioner's career and future prospects. The next step in this direction was a smear campaign orchestrated over the years by the succeeding Heads of the Department of Physiology. The DME vide Exhibit P6 has informed the petitioner of the Reporting Officer's recommendation presumably in the secret part of the above CR 1996 that the petitioner required training on behavioural principles. The petitioner feels that this is where the character assassination and the slander campaign originated. Thanks to the malicious propaganda that followed, it has become impossible for the petitioner to function in the set up.

15. The petitioner is a law abiding citizen and never had any brushes with the law.

However in Thiruvananthapuram, for the last so many years the petitioner has been facing incessant harassment by the police and as a result the petitioner's personal life is in shambles. In this context the petitioner would beg to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that, the petitioner is not a native of Thiruvananthapuram and his only connection with Thiruvananthapuram is through the Medical College, Trivandrum. There is no reason whatsoever for any one in Thiruvananthapuram, other than perhaps the authorities in the Medical College, to nurse a grudge against the petitioner. As such the petitioner's presumption is that the police harassment is at the behest of the authorities in Medical College, Trivandrum.

16. The petitioner is being ostracized and kept out of all academic activities. The petitioner is not being allotted any classes anymore there by ensuring that the student population do not have a chance to know the petitioner personally and perforce have to believe the stories being perpetrated by the vested interests in the Medical College, Trivandrum.

17. The petitioner is confident of exposing and disproving the Trivandrum Medical College authorities on his own. However, in a denial of natural justice to the petitioner, decisions regarding the petitioner are being taken ex-party and the petitioner is being deprived of an opportunity to state his case. The petitioner had reliable information about an enquiry on him by a police surgeon of Medical College, Trivandrum presumably on the orders of the higher ups. There was no effort to find out what the petitioner had to say on the matter. The petitioner's request for a copy of the enquiry report did not receive any response. The petitioner's presumption is that the above enquiry is just one incident that came to the knowledge of the petitioner out of many similar efforts on the part of the authorities of the Medical College, Trivandrum to malign the petitioner.

In view of the above the petitioner is humbly seeking appropriate reliefs from this Hon'ble Court on the following mainly among other

GROUNDS

A. Public (rules) Department G. O. (P) no.344 dated 22nd august 1966 on mode of preparation and custody of confidential reports on government servants ( vide 7. communication of remarks-last line of the paragraph) unambiguously states that " - - - - where an adverse entry is made the reporting officer should certify that the defect has been brought to the subordinate's notice." The reporting officer, in this case the Head of the Department of Physiology, Medical College, Trivandrum has not done so. Nor has the Reporting Officer in her explanation ever claimed that she has complied with the above orders, reason enough for any authority considering the matter dispassionately to declare the adverse remarks illegal and expunge them. However the Director of Medical Education, Kerala chose not to do so.

B. The pretext for the rejection of the representation as stated by the DME in Exhibit P6 is a statement made by the Reporting Officer at a later date in justification of the remarks already made by her. According to the DME, the Reporting Officer has made adverse remarks in the petitioner's CR in item no.5 that the petitioner is not co-operative and item no.13 that the petitioner is not receptive to the ideas of others. The important justifications made by the Reporting Officer for making the adverse remarks in the petitioner's CR for 1996 are that " - - - - her evaluation of the petitioner was based on her observations on his (the petitioner's) behaviour in the department and she had brought out only the truth. She explained that he never used to get along well with others in the department. He always used to antagonize (oral and written) his senior colleagues in the allotment of classes - with respect to timing, day, number of days etc he would take the classes finally allotted to him according to his convenience but would not allow any other teacher to enter the practical class after the demonstration. Normally after demonstration of a practical by one teacher, 2 to 3 other teachers would go to the class and supervise the students while they do the experiment. This was embarrassing to the other teachers and disadvantageous for students. He openly criticized other staff members including Head of Department during his classes. He would disappear from the department expecting when he had an allotted class. He would absent himself from examination days, if he was put on examination duty. He never participated in the scientific activities in the department."

C. The above statements purported to be made by the reporting officer in justification of the adverse remarks are falsehoods and the reporting officer will not be able to substantiate even a single one of them. The Director of Medical Education, Kerala in his eagerness to oblige the reporting officer, who, as far as the petitioner's information goes, at present happens to be the principal of a private medical college in trivandrum, did not do any thing to clarify the veracity of the facts but has chosen to blindly believe the barefaced lies of the reporting officer and took the justifications at face value there by doing the petitioner a severe injustice. A simple scrutiny of the records like the attendance register of the students, the records in the Medical College office of the details of examination duties the petitioner performed during the period could have easily brought out the real picture.

D. In the context of the justifications made by the Reporting Officer the petitioner begs to submit the following:

i)During the period covered by the confidential report for the year 1996, the petitioner had dutifully taken all the classes allotted to him. The number of classes taken by the petitioner in comparison to the other lecturers in the department and other aspects can easily be made out by referring to the students' attendance register.


The petitioner never shirked his duties even when the allotment of classes was done by lecturers junior to the petitioner.


In effect any one in the Department other than the petitioner could have signed a communication on behalf of the Head of the Department and that way almost any one else in the department could have dictated terms to the petitioner.


ii) There was no question of the petitioner antagonizing ( oral or written) his senior colleagues in the allotment of classes.

The petitioner in fact has desisted from retaliation even when under acute provocation. There was an untoward incident in 1996 january where in the petitioner felt offended by the unruly behaviour of a senior staff member of the dept. Instead of taking on the person himself, the petitioner had put up with the onslaught meekly and later made a written representation on the matter to the Head of the Department of Physiology vide his letter No. MCT/021-a/96 dt 06 jan 96 copy of which is produced herewith and marked Exhibit P8, and left it for the authorities to deal with.


iii) Over and above the normal duties, the petitioner, as per the directions of the Head of the Department of Physiology, Medical College, Trivandrum, had also taken classes for the students of dental hygienists certificate course during the year 1996.

Incidentally in the statement made by the Director of Medical Education, Kerala in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP no. 30121 of 2002 the reporting officer is said to have mentioned " if any other work is allotted in addition to the demonstration of classes (Practical) he refuses to engage them." This has been left out of the present justifications, for the reporting officer is now aware that the records of additional classes taken are available with the petitioner where as he has no access to the other documents mentioned above like the attendance register or the register of examination duties which are in the safe custody of the medical college authorities.

iv) The petitioner had done all the examination duties allotted to him. The petitioner remembers even substituting for one of the assistant professors of the department of Physiology and supervising the final examination of the national board of examinations which if the petitioner's memory is correct happened to be in 1996. This fact again can be verified from the records available with the college office.


v) It was on the initiative of the petitioner that a make shift staff room for the male members of the teaching staff came into existence in the department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum.

The petitioner had made himself comfortable there and during 1996 invariably used to spend all the working hours including lunch hours in the department. It may be of relevance in this context that the petitioner is a loner and there is no one waiting for him at home.


vi) The petitioner had actively taken part in all the academic activities during 1996.

The only such activity of any moment during the year was a continuing medical education programme (CME), in memory of a late professor and the petitioner remembers the Reporting Officer herself complimenting him on his performance as they were leaving the venue at the end of the function. This aspect probably was the undoing of the petitioner for
the basic trend in the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum is not to try to emulate the other chap, but to try to pull him down by hook or crook.


E. It is simply not possible even to imagine of the petitioner preventing other teachers from entering the class.


If at all such a situation existed, the question arises as to what the Head of the Department and other authorities were doing while the petitioner was running amok.


Though this action of the petitioner was "disadvantageous to the students" no action was taken against him on the matter and the Reporting Officer patiently waited till october 1997 to mention it in the petitioner's confidential report.


The petitioner is not surprised that the Reporting Officer is making this sort of justifications to get out of the muddle; but the astonishing fact is that the Director of Medical Education, Kerala is so naive as to blindly believe the Reporting Officer.


The fact of the matter is that the dedicated teachers of the Department of Physiology of Medical College, Trivandrum used to stick to the seats allotted to the lecturers in the lab except perhaps when a student specifically asks one of them for help, while the petitioner used to be with the students all through the class. The students of those days know the facts.


The petitioner had even suggested that we could run three or four demonstrations by as many lecturers simultaneously instead of the whole 25 students crowding around one demonstrator. But there was such staunch opposition to this suggestion from the dedicated teachers in view of the slight increase in their work load that the suggestion was never accepted.


The injustice of it all is jarring.

F. Unlike some other disciplines like for example surgery, there is hardly any teamwork involved in the job of a lecturer in Physiology and the petitioner was mostly on his own. On the contrary the most important aspect of the petitioners interpersonal relationship as a teacher is with his students. The Reporting Officer has nothing to say on the matter. Obviously students are not the Reporting Officer's nor the DME's first priority.


G. The petitioner's humble feeling is that in order to prove the case in allegations like non-cooperation and not being receptive to ideas of others, vague statements like what the Reporting Officer has made above, will not be of any moment and it is obligatory to produce specific instances of such actions and elaborate on what exactly was the matter on which the culprit was not co-operative or what exactly was the idea that the petitioner was not receptive to. Otherwise such items in the CR could be abused to spoil the career of subordinates. As a simple illustration and with no intentions of making any aspersions on any one including himself, the petitioner would take a purely hypothetical situation of him landing up in an institution where copying at public examinations is rampant and is the norm. If the petitioner objects to it, it can be interpreted as non co-operation and being not amenable to the ideas of others by those who are at home in such an atmosphere. But the above allegation will not be v alid in any civilized set up.


H. Every rule on the mode of preparation and custody of the CR was flouted in the initiation of the CR on the petitioner for the year 1996. A simple scrutiny of the original CR will be of relevance in this context. The petitioner begs to submit the following to the Hon'ble Court in this context:


i)The CR for 1996 under normal circumstances is to be initiated by 1st february 1997 (G.O. (P) no.344 dated, trivandrum, 22nd august 1966 para 14 Date of submission) but in the case of the petitioner was initiated in late October 1997.


ii) G.O. (P) no.360 dated, trivandrum, 3rd december 1968 quotes the rule that " ---- as soon as the confidential report is written by the Reporting Officer and reviewed by the Reviewing Officer it should be shown to the officer concerned and his acknowledgement obtained on it. ----- " and emphasises that " - - --- this should be done by the Reporting Officer wherever possible - -- -" and that " the above procedure should be completed before the confidential report is forwarded to the custodian officer for safe custody."The confidential report on the petitioner for the year 1996 on the contrary had found its way into the petitioner's dossier in the DME's office without ever being shown to the petitioner. This could have been used to sabotage the petitioner's prospects in case of his being considered for promotion. It was only after months of persistent efforts on the part of the petitioner that he was shown the CR and even then by the administrative officer.


iii) The Reporting Officer has awarded grade "B" to the petitioner in the item no.15 " attitudes/achievements in the implementation of programs, schemes of scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes and prevention of atrocities on them " which applies only to those employees who deal with the protection of and implementation of welfare and development schemes of scheduled castes/ scheduled tribes. The petitioner's job has nothing whatsoever to do with the above mentioned item in the CR. In this context the petitioner most humbly invites the attention of this Hon'ble Court to the G.O. (P) no.344 dated, trivandrum, 22nd august 1966 para 4. (vi) which states that " --------- all officers who have to record their remarks in the confidential reports should do so with the greatest caution and should not record any remarks lightly or on the spur of the moment. --- ".


iv) The confidentiality of the CR was never maintained. the petitioner has seen his CR with the adverse remarks and if the DME's statement is to be believed the advice that the petitioner required training on behavioural principles and such, being handled freely by at least four junior office staff. This is in contravention of para 16. miscellaneous-(i) restriction in handling of G. O. (P) no.344 dated trivandrum, 22nd august 1966. Thus the so called secret part of the petitioner's CR is secret only as far as the petitioner is concerned.

J. The petitioner begs to point out that he was in trivandrum for the explicit purpose of doing the M.D., and it is simple common logic that a fellow who wants to do a postgraduation will not choose to have a show-down with the professor who is going to be his examiner unless pushed to the wall.


K. The petitioner had a clean record in T.D.Medical College, Alleppey where he started his teaching career.

In spite of an acute dearth of teaching staff which at times came down to a total of five or even four, in sharp contrast to the twenty in Medical College, Trivandrum, the petitioner had carried out all the duties allotted to him, including lecture classes over and above the practicals, sincerely and to the entire satisfaction of the Head of the Department of Physiology in T.D.Medical College, Alleppey.

In spite of a character like the petitioner being on the staff of the institution the students of T.D.Medical College, Alleppey in those days used to do better than those of Medical College, Trivandrum and top the Kerala university's I M.B.,B.S., examinations and T.D.Medical College used to produce better overall results than Medical College, Trivandrum.


Incidentally though the petitioner's designation is lecturer the petitioner was never allotted a lecture class even on a trial basis in Medical College, Trivandrum nor was he ever given any responsible job.

In Thiruvananthapuram these are the privileges of the chosen few. In the context of the above, if every thing goes topsy-turvy in Medical College, Trivandrum the petitioner's humble feeling is that the reason has to be looked for some where else than in the person of the petitioner.


L. The petitioner's humble submission is that the underlying problem is with the basic ethos or rather, the absence of it.

In T.D.Medical College, Alleppey the primary function of the Department of Physiology was to teach the students and the teachers get paid for doing the job; the petitioner was completely at home there.

The Department of Physiology in Medical College, Trivandrum basically is meant for job generation for medical doctors.

In this context the petitioner begs to bring to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Court that during 1996 and there about, a whole allied department in Biophysics was existing in Medical College, Trivandrum, the sole function of which, as far as the humble knowledge of the petitioner goes, was to create five additional vacancies for the teaching staff in Physiology in Thiruvananthapuram.

In order to justify the existence of the biophysics dept. the student hours used to be wasted on various pretexts.

The petitioner believes in earning his salary and accepts that he is temperamentally unsuited to establishments like the Medical College, Trivandrum. However the petitioner never interfered in other people's affairs nor tried to force his ideas on others.

Unfortunately the petitioner, an "outsider" had "intruded" into their safe havens inadvertently as there was no M.D., course in Physiology in T.D.Medical College, Alleppey and the vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum who were the direct beneficiaries of the peculiar situation in the establishment there, saw in the petitioner, with his uncompromising nature on matters of principle, a thorn in their flesh.


M. The humble submission of the petitioner in the above context is that the the adverse remarks in the petitioner's CR is one of a series of efforts on the part of the vested interests in Medical College, Trivandrum, made explicitly with the purpose of spoiling the career of the petitioner. Initially the petitioner was denied the lecturer trainee post which would for all practical purposes have finished off the petitioner's dreams of getting an M.D.,. When this did not work out, adverse remarks were made in the confidential report of the petitioner which found its way conveniently to the petitioners dossier in the DME's office where it could have been used as a reserve weapon to stall the progress of the petitioner in the eventuality of the petitioner's name being considered for promotion to the next grade. Once caught on the wrong foot the authorities are cooking up pretexts to justify their doings rather than admit the mistakes and make amends.

N. With hindsight the petitioner's feels that it is futile to expect justice from the authorities in the medical education set up. Four years of intense persuasion on the part of the petitioner to get a response from the DME on the matter of the petitioner's representation on his CR for 1996 did not succeed in opening the eyes of the Director of Medical Education, Kerala and it was only on explicit orders from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide the judgement in OP No. 30121 of 2002 that the DME ultimately was kind enough to give a decision on the matter. This decision was just an invitation for another writ petition WP No. 34353 of 2003 wherein the Hon'ble Court quashed the above orders of the DME. In both the above writ petitions, the Hon'ble Courts have found the DME wrong. However the actual looser on both occasions has been the petitioner and the public exchequer. Even the responses to the directions of the Hon'ble Court from the DME comes invariably at the eleventh hour to avoid contempt of court proceedings. The above actions of the Director of Medical Education, Kerala has proved beyond doubt that the authorities at the helm of the medical education service have no respect for the rule of law and it is only the fear of prosecution that ultimately makes the DME put on an act. The petitioner's humble prayer to the Hon'ble Court in the above context is to declare the flawed document that is the confidential report on the petitioner for the year 1996 as such with all the remarks there in null and void.

O. The DME vide Exhibit P6 also states that the Reporting Officer has recommended that the petitioner required training on behavioural principles which, the petitioner presumes, refers to the secret part of the CR. The petitioner's impression is that there is more to it than what has already been mentioned by the DME in Exhibit P6 and that the first seeds of the character assassination campaign that followed in the years to come could be traced to this part of the Reporting Officer's comments.

P. The nefarious designs of the authorities were put paid to till date in that they were not successful in their efforts to throw the petitioner out of the job due to his stubborn resistance. The petitioner is still holding on to his job in the Medical College, Trivandrum in the face of overwhelming odds. However the petitioner is getting on in age and even under normal course is due to retire from service at the end of the academic year 2004- 2005. Being a poor man with not even a roof over his head the petitioner will have to eke out a livelihood working. Thanks to the covert operations of the authorities in Medical College Trivandrum, the petitioner is leading the life of a pariah, and the chances of the petitioner finding another suitable job or any job at all, are bleak and even the very existence of the petitioner has become precarious.

Q. The petitioner feels that in order to survive he has to regain his lost reputation and will have to act within the short period he has left in the Medical education service. The petitioner has the courage of his convictions and is confident of being able to contradict and disprove the trivandrum medical college authorities on his own. The respondents are aware of this and are carefully avoiding a direct confrontation by sidelining the petitioner on false pretexts and denying him a chance to present his case.

R. In this context the petitioner's prays this court for sanctuary from the atrocities being perpetuated by the authorities on the petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner is given a chance to present his case before decisions are being taken. The petitioner therefore most respectfully begs of the Hon'ble Court to order recovery of the original CR and other documents concerning the petitioner including the enquiry report by the police surgeon referred to above and allow access to the petitioner to the documents so that the petitioner can pursue the matter further and take things to their logical conclusion.

For the foregoing reasons the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a) to issue writs of certiorari quashing
i) the orders of the DME vide their no. G3/21700/2000/DME dated 03.01.04 ( Exhibit P6) and ii) the offending confidential report on the petitioner for the year 1996,
b) to issue a writ of mandamaus directing the thiruvananthapuram medical college authorities to ensure that individual's basic rights are respected and that the petitioner be given an opportunity to present his side of the case in all matters affecting him,
c) to order discovery of the original confidential report on the petitioner for the year 1996 and other documents pertaining to the petitioner including any enquiry report on the petitioner and the minutes of the college management committee and provide access to the petitioner to all the documents relevant to his case and
b) To issue such other orders or directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

INTERIM RELIEF

In view of his imminent retirement from service, the petitioner prays for urgent interim orders so that he is not left stranded after his retirement in just one years time.

Dated this 19th day of february 2004.

( Dr. Cheriyath Jyothi )
Petitioner

the case was admitted on march 03, 2004 and notice issued to the respondents.

please click the link below to go to the
next document

top