The Dean of Karur Medical College Hospital, Revathi Kailairajan, earlier filed a petition the High Court challenging the appointment of Edwin Joe as Director of Medical Education in April, 2017. She had stated that she is more experienced and is eligible to be appointed as Director of Medical Education. 

On hearing the petition, a single Judge in the High Court issued a stay order to the appointment of Edwin Joe and to appoint Revathi Kailairajan as Director of Medical Education. When the state government went for appeal against the judgment the Division Bench the High Court had issued stay to the GO which made Edwin Joe as DME and also stayed the judgement of single Judge. 

The Bench had directed the Government to appoint a suitable candidate as Director of Medical Education within six weeks. As there was no action even after six weeks Revathi Kailairajan had filed a contempt petition against Secretary of Health Department and initially government had announced that Edwin Joe was removed as DME. 

The public prosecutor (PP) also informed the High Court that the post of Director of Medical Education was lying vacant and the list of candidates had been given to the government. The appointment would be made in two days, the PP informed the court. However on Friday, when the case was heard two-judge bench comprising Justices N Kirubakaran, and R Tharani, the PP informed the court that the government had decided to appoint Edwin Joe as Director of Medical Education again. 

When Judges asked that why again Edwin Joe was preferred, the PP gave a list of nine points in favour of Edwin Joe. Judges again questioned that why could not the state government find a single point favourable for Revathi Kailairajan. The counsel of the petitioner argued that instead of finding merit the government had served memo to another candidate in Director of Medical Education list just for the sake that his name was present in the list of qualified persons to be appointed as DME. 

Following that Judges advised the State not to insult straight forward people who had rendered their service to the society for long.  Following that the Judges directed the PP to furnish the details of all the previous judgments in connection to the case and adjourned the hearing on February 7.