Madurai: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a single judge’s order directing the government to appoint Dr. P. Palavesakumar, a differently-abled Siddha practitioner from a Scheduled Caste community, as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha).
Division Bench Rejects MSRB Appeal
A division bench comprising Justices J. Nisha Banu and S. Srimathy dismissed the appeal filed by the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MSRB) against the 2023 ruling. The court held there was “no infirmity” in the single bench’s order.
Background of the Case
Dr. Palavesakumar, who completed his MD (Siddha), applied in 2017 for the post when the MSRB issued a recruitment notification. Though he secured 57 out of 100 marks in the written exam, his name was excluded from the provisional list.
He first approached the court in 2017, which in 2019 directed authorities to consider his claim as vacancies arose. However, his request was later rejected on grounds that the selection process had been conducted properly. This led him to file another petition in 2020.
Single Judge’s Findings
In February 2023, the single judge found irregularities in MSRB’s application of the reservation policy. The court observed that meritorious SC candidates, who should have been adjusted under open category seats, were wrongly counted against reserved vacancies.
It also held that MSRB had incorrectly clubbed all differently-abled candidates under one category, instead of applying the 4% horizontal reservation across each social quota. Accordingly, the court directed the government to appoint Dr. Palavesakumar against an existing general vacancy.
Division Bench Backs Relief
Upholding this order, the division bench noted that the recruiting agency failed to follow the proper reservation method. It ruled that the single judge had correctly addressed the issue and that Dr. Palavesakumar was entitled to the appointment.
“The single judge had rightly directed the appointment of Palavesakumar as Assistant Medical Officer (Siddha) against the existing general vacancy. We find no infirmity in the order,” the court observed, while dismissing the MSRB’s appeal.
