Kerala Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953 (Act X Of 1953) – Sections 3(2)(D), 6 – Election – Eligibility Of Candidates – Membership in Trained Nurses Association of India (TNAI) – Disqualification – Subsequent Termination Of Membership.
2025 KER 48201 : 2025 KLT OnLine 2239
Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Nagaresh
W.P.(C) No. 21657/2025, July 3, 2025
Facts: The petitioner, President of the Trained Nurses Association of India (TNAI), Kerala State Branch, challenged the nominations of respondents 2 to 4 for the post of Member of the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council (KNMC) under the TNAI quota, seeking to quash Exts.P1 and P5 notifications. The TNAI had endorsed Mr. Dileep M.K. as its candidate, and its bye-laws required members contesting against the endorsed candidate to withdraw. Respondents 2 to 4, despite being TNAI members, filed nominations without endorsement and were later expelled from TNAI on May 9, 2025, for not withdrawing. The petitioner argued that their expulsion disqualified them from contesting. The Returning Officer accepted their nominations, asserting no objections were raised during scrutiny on February 6, 2025, and that eligibility was met at the time of nomination.
Issue: Whether the nominations of respondents 2 to 4, accepted by the Returning Officer, were invalid due to their subsequent expulsion from TNAI, and whether TNAI bye-laws could override statutory eligibility criteria under the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Act, 1953.
Held: Eligibility for contesting KNMC elections is determined at the time of nomination, scrutiny, and withdrawal deadlines (January 20 to February 11, 2025). Respondents 2 to 4 were valid TNAI members during these stages, satisfying the eligibility condition under Section 3(2)(d) of the Act. Their subsequent expulsion on May 9, 2025, did not retrospectively invalidate their nominations. The Court further held that TNAI bye-laws, requiring endorsement or withdrawal, are internal rules and do not supersede statutory provisions. Section 6 of the Act lists specific disqualifications, none of which applied to respondents 2 to 4. The Court found no legal basis to declare the nominations invalid, as the Returning Officer followed due process, and no objections were raised during scrutiny. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the nominations.
For Petitioner : Advs. Romy Chacko, P.S. George & Roy Chacko
For Respondents : Advs. N.Raghuraj (Sr. Advocate), Vivek Menon, Rajit, Saju J. Panicker, V.C. Madhavankutty, Sruthi Rajit, Kurian K. Jose & James P. Thomas
