The Kerala High Court expressed serious concern over the continuing absence of adequate veterinary services in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and directed the Union Territory Administration to provide detailed explanations for the unfilled sanctioned posts of veterinary surgeons and related staff. A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and another Judge was hearing a public interest litigation that highlighted the lack of veterinary care across the inhabited islands of the archipelago. The petitioner had sought a direction compelling the administration to ensure that sufficient veterinary surgeons were available to attend to livestock on each inhabited island, noting that the animals in the territory had been without substantial veterinary care for an extended period. The Court observed that despite its earlier order in 2022, which had directed authorities to expedite appointments of veterinary surgeons and other staff, no significant progress appeared to have been made, prompting the current judicial inquiry. The earlier disposition of the PIL had recorded that no veterinary care had been provided since September 2021, and the Court noted with concern that little change had occurred since that time. The Union Territory Administration, in the present hearing, informed the Court that it was in the process of appointing five veterinary surgeons on a contractual basis. However, this position appeared inconsistent with earlier statements made to the Court and with official records, including a 2020 notification of the Union Public Service Commission showing at least nine permanent sanctioned posts of veterinary assistant surgeons in Lakshadweep, with an earlier commitment to fill nine contractual posts as well. The Bench observed that the reduction from nine posts to five, without any formal modification of previous court orders, raised questions about the basis for the administration’s changed stance and underscored the need for a clear explanation supported by staffing records and reasons for the non‑filling of sanctioned positions.
The High Court therefore directed the Lakshadweep Administration to file a detailed counter‑affidavit explaining the exact number of sanctioned posts for veterinary surgeons and related personnel, providing supporting records showing current staffing positions, the reasons why those posts remained unfilled, and the justification for reducing the number of intended appointments from nine to five. The Court emphasized that the administration must clarify why delayed recruitment processes had persisted despite earlier judicial directions and why the actual number of posts proposed to be filled had been curtailed without seeking the Court’s review or modification of earlier orders. The Bench underscored that such explanations were necessary to enable the Court to assess the situation and ensure that livestock in the islands did not continue to suffer due to administrative inertia.
As an interim measure, the Court directed the administration to immediately invite applications and expressions of interest from local non‑governmental organisations willing to provide veterinary care, to ensure that the health of livestock did not deteriorate due to bureaucratic delays in filling sanctioned positions. The Court also expressed the expectation that contractual appointments for veterinary surgeons should be completed before the next scheduled hearing. The petition was posted for further consideration on a future date, with the High Court reserving the right to assess the administration’s compliance with its directives and the adequacy of steps taken to address the chronic shortage of veterinary services in the Union Territory. The proceedings reflect the judiciary’s concern that essential animal healthcare should not be neglected and that public interest concerns, once highlighted and judicially addressed, must be acted upon promptly by the responsible authorities.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.