The Kerala High Court has clarified that when special rules governing a service are in conflict with the general Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS&SSR), it must be determined whether both provisions can coexist without contradiction. If they are repugnant, the special rules will prevail.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar ruled that:
"When there is an inconsistency between two statutory provisions occupying the same field, they are considered repugnant. To assess whether a provision in the Special Rules contradicts the general provisions in KS&SSR, the test is whether both can coexist without colliding in a given situation."
Case Background
The issue arose when assistant surgeons appointed under the Kerala Health Service (Medical Officer) Special Rules, 2010, who had opted for placement in the Specialty Cadre, sought to later relinquish their choice under Rule 38 of Part II of KS&SSR.
These doctors, initially opting for specialty placements in 2013, later wished to withdraw their decision citing personal inconvenience. However, their requests were denied by the Government based on Rule 6 of the Special Rules, which states that once an option is exercised, it is final.
Challenging this, the assistant surgeons approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), which ruled in their favor, holding that under Rule 38 of KS&SSR, they had the right to relinquish the option. The Government subsequently appealed to the High Court, arguing that Rule 6 of the Special Rules overrides Rule 38 of KS&SSR.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Directs State to Ensure Anonymity of POSH Act Complainants in Enquiry Proceedings
The High Court found that Rule 38 of KS&SSR allows officials to relinquish any right or privilege under certain conditions, while Rule 6 of the Special Rules strictly prohibits relinquishment once the option for placement has been exercised. This direct contradiction made them repugnant.
Applying the repugnancy test, the court ruled:
"While Rule 38 permits relinquishment of rights or privileges, Rule 6 of the Special Rules categorically forbids it. When applied to the placement of Assistant Surgeons, these provisions contradict each other—one allowing relinquishment and the other forbidding it—making them mutually inconsistent. Hence, per Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR, the provisions in the Special Rules will prevail over the general rules."
The court emphasized that Rule 2 of Part II KS&SSR explicitly states that when there is a conflict between the general rules and the Special Rules, the latter shall take precedence.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Rules in Favor of Teachers: Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry Before Criminal Cases
Despite ruling against the surgeons, the court acknowledged their concerns about being posted far from their hometowns and stated:
"On humanitarian grounds, the Government shall consider these grievances when assigning them to the Specialty Cadre."
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Sunilkumar Kuriakose (GP)
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates Jelson J. Edampadam. M. Fathahudeen
Case No: OP(KAT) 420 of 2024 & OP(KAT) 422 of 2024
Case Title: State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi
