THjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...3 AND: 1. The State of Karnataka,...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2012

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI

WRIT PETITION.Nos.15807-15810/2012 (EDN-RES)AND WP Nos.15811-15812/2012 AND W.P.Nos.15813-15816/2012 C/w W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012,

15417/2012 AND 15636-664/2012, 14430/2012, 16337-16349/2012

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012AND WP.Nos.15811-15812/12,AND WP Nos.15813-15816/12:

BETWEEN:

1. Dr.Siddappa,S/o.Balappa Naik, Aged about 37 years,Occ: Medical Officer,20 Bedded Hospital,Government Hospital,Ramanagar, Joida Taluk,Uttara Kannada District.

2. Dr.Somashekara Kabbera,S/o.K.Lingappa,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, Munirabad,Koppal District.

3. Mrs. Geetha S.M.W/o. Mahadev,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Dommasandra, Tk: Anekal,District: Bangalore Urban.

4. Dr.Guruswamy,S/o.Late Thippeswamy,Aged about 39 years,

2

Working as Medial Officer,CHC Ujjini, Tk: Kudligi,District: Bellary.

5. Dr.Giridhar,S/o.A.Shantamurthy,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital,Jagalur, Tk: Jagalur,District: Davanagere.

6. Dr.Ramesh,S/o.Vittal Rao,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer, PHC Dommasandra,Tk: Anekal, Dist: Bangalore Urban.

7. Dr.Sharangouda Patil,S/o.Chandrashekar Patil,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital,Devadurga, Raichur District.

8. Dr.Shashidhar,S/o.A.P.Rajashekara,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Daginakatte,Davanagere District.

9. Dr.Chikkareddy M.L.S/o.Lakshmappa,Aged about 38 year,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Hudli, Tk & Dt.Belgaum.

10. Dr.Arun,S/o.Dakshinamurthy,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Vemgal, Tk & Dt.Kolar. …Petitioners

(By Sri Udaya Holla, Senior Advocate for Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate)

3

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,Department of Health and Family Welfare Vikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,Bangalore – 560 001,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Bangalore.

2. The Commissioner,Health and Family Welfare Services,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009,Bangalore.

3. The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate of Health andFamily Welfare Services,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009,Bangalore.

4. Rajiv Gandhi University of HealthSciences, 4th ‘T’ Block,Jayanagar, Bangalore – 41,Represented by itsRegistrar, Bangalore. … Respondents

(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General andSri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3,

Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned Circular, dated 16.05.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent and produced as Annexure-Q and etc.

W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012:

BETWEEN:

1. Dr.B.M.Shivaswamy,S/o.B.S.Mariswamy,Aged about 42 years,At PHC, Byramangala,Ramanagara Tq.Ramanagar District.

4

2. Dr.Venugopal S.S/o.L.Sidde Gowda,Aged about 40 years,At LH Hospital,Vidhana Soudha,Bangalore. …Petitioners

(By Sriyuths Siddappa, Sunil and Nitin, Advocates)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,Represented by its Secretary,Department of Health and Family WelfareVikasa Soudha, Bangalore.

2. The Commissioner,Health and Family Welfare,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009,Bangalore.

3. The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate of Health andFamily Welfare,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009,Bangalore.

4. The Registrar,Rajiv Gandhi University of HealthSciences, 4th ‘T’ Block,Jayanagar, Bangalore – 41. … Respondents

(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3,


These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the Government Gazette Notification dated 21.02.2012 vide Annexure-B and set aside all consequential actions initiated pursuant to Annexure-B, and etc.

5

W.P.Nos.15417/2012 AND 15636-15664/2012:

BETWEEN:

1. Dr.Sonia J.V.Aged about 39 years,W/o.Manjunath,Working as Medical Officer,PHC-Banawadi, Magadi Tq.,Ramanagar District – 562 112.

2. Dr.Lohitha H.M.Aged about 43 years,S/o.Maheshwarappa,Working as Medical Officer,District Hospital,ChikkamagalurChikkamagalur District-577 101.

3. Dr.Mallikarjuna,Aged about 38 years,S/o.S.S.Kuba Kaddi,Working as Medical Officer,CHC – Tavaragera,Kushtagi Tq.Koppal District- 584 121.

4. Dr.Sharanamma Patil,Aged about 38 years,W/o.Gurulingappa Patil,Working as Medical Officer,Urban Health Centre (IPP)Heerapura, Gulbarga – 585 101.

5. Dr.Sanjeev Kumar,Aged about 40 years,S/o.Balagi Singh,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Kavalur,Yadgiri Tq. & District – 585 201.

6. Dr.Vasanth Kumar L.M.Aged about 37 years,S/o.L.S.Muniyappa,Working as Medical Officer,CHC – Arikera,Yadgiri Tq. & District – 585 201.

6

7. Dr.B.Srinivasa,Aged about 38 years,S/o.Beerappa D.Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kannalli,Bangalore Urban – 560 035.

8. Dr.Divya Kumari C.T.,Aged about 38 years,W/o.Dr.Nagesh K.R.,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, KanchanahalliHassan Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

9. Dr.Suma S.R.Aged about 40 years,W/o.Ramesh R.,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, Hosadurga,Hosadurga Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 527.

10. Dr.A.R.Nirmala,Aged about 39 years,W/o.Srikanth A.N.,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Koneghatta,Doddaballapura Tq.Bangalore Rural District – 561 203.

11. Dr.Vrunda Prabhu K.M.,Aged about 41 years,D/o.Mohan Prabhu,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Mallandaru,Chikkamagalore District 577 101.

12. Dr.Raju B.,Aged about 43 years,S/o.Basavegowda,Working as Medical Officer,GH – HunasuruHunasuru Tq.Mysore District – 571 105.

7

13. Dr.Srinivas R.,Aged about 37 years,S/o.Rudramuni K.,Working as Medical Officer,PHC– Boliyaru,D.K.District – 575 003.

14. Dr.Sathyanarayan R.Aged about 41 years,S/o. RangegowdaWorking as Medical Officer,CHC Maduvalahippe,H.N.Pura, Hassan District-573 201.

15. Dr.Suresh Kumar H.M,Aged about 39 years,S/o.H.Mariyappa,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Manne,Nelamangala Taluk,Bangalore Rural – 562 123.

16. Dr.Geetha Priya P.,Aged about 37 years,W/o.Subindh,Working as Medical Officer,CHC – K.M.Doddi,Maddur Tq.Mandya District – 571 428.

17. Dr.Jayanthi R.,Aged about 39 years,S/o.Devadass R,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Siddaganga Matha,Tumkur Tq, Tumkur Dist-572 101.

18. Dr.Mahadeva Nayaka.,Aged about 43 years,S/o.Gopala Nayaka,Working as District Surv.Officer,DSO – Chamarajanagar,Chamarajanagar Tq. District – 571 313.

19. Dr.G.S.Sridhar.,Aged about 43 years,S/o.G.T.Subbe Gowda,

8

Working as Medical Officer,CHC – Udaya PuraCR Patna Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

20. Dr.H.K.RameshAged about 38 years,S/o.Kenchappa,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – KodihalliKanakapura Taluk,Ramanagara District – 562 112.

21. Dr.Sathish M.K,Aged about 33 years,S/o.Kenchappa,Working as Medical Officer,M.S.D.M. Hospital KoppaChikkamagalore District – 577 101.

22. Dr.Geetha K.B,Aged about 48 years,W/o.Manju Prakash,Working as Medical Officer,PHC LaggereBangalore North Tq.,Bangalore Urban Dist-560 058.

23. Dr.Nagappa G.S,Aged about 41 years,S/o.Shivanna,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Rayakoppalu,Alur Tq, Hassan Dist-573 201.

24. Dr.D.N.Nagalakshmi,Aged about 40 years,w/o.Srikanth P.C.,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Kowshika,Hassan Tq.Hassan District – 573201.

25. Dr.Brahmendra M,Aged about 46 years,S/o.M.Mariswamy,Working as Medical Officer,

9

District HospitalChamaraja Nagar,Chamaraja Nagar District – 571 313.

26. Dr.Praveen Kumar C.H,Aged about 35 years,S/o.Raghuveer C.H.,Working as District FamilyWelfare Officer,DHO Office,Bangalore Rural – 560 001.

27. Dr.Chennakeshava S.P,Aged about 42 years,S/o.Late Pappa Settappa,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Thovinakere,Koratagere Tq.Tumkur District – 571 428.

28. Dr.G.R.Ramesh,Aged about 43 years,S/o.Ramakrishnayya,Working as Medical Officer,Addl. District TB Centre,Sira, Sira Tq.Tumkur District – 571 428.

29. Dr.Sakharam Shetty,Aged about 46 years,S/o.Shankar Shetty,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Belawadi,Chikkamagalur Tq. & District – 577 101.

30. Dr.C.Suvarna.,Aged about 44 years,S/o.P.B.Prakash, Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Kudlapura,Nanjangud Taluk,Mysore District – 571 301. …Petitioners

(By Sri Madhusudhan R.Naik, Senior Advocatefor Sri Reuben Jacob, Advocate)

10

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,Department of Health and Family WelfareVikasa Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,Bangalore – 560 001,Represented by its Principal Secretary.

2. The Commissioner,Health and Family Welfare Services,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate of Health andFamily Welfare Services,Anand Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

4. Rajiv Gandhi University of HealthSciences, 4th ‘T’ Block,Jayanagar, Bangalore – 41,Represented by its Registrar.

5. Dr.Sreeram C.J.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Ramagiri, Holalkere Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 501.

6. Dr.Sudeep Kumar H.C.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Chikkajogihalli,Shikaripura Tq.Shimoga District – 577 427.

7. Dr.Arathi M.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC MuddapuraChitradurga District – 577 501.

11

8. Dr.Mahendra A.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Shettikere,C.N.Halli Tq.Tumkur District – 571 428.

9. Dr.Sirdhar D.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Kushalanagar,Coorg District – 571 234.

10. Dr.Ananda Manohara Zulki.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk Hospital,Basavanabagewadi Tq.Bijapura District – 586 203.

11. Dr.Manjunatha H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC D.S.Halli (Dodda Siddavanahalli)Chitradurga Tq. & District – 577 501.

12. Dr.Venugopal K.J.S/o.Late K.M.Javaraiah,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,Urban Health Centre (IPP-8)Nehrunagar, Bhadravathi Tq.Shimoga District – 577 301.

13. Dr.Gurumurthy H.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Sakarayapatana,Kadur Tq.Chikmagalur Dist – 577 548.

12

14. Dr.Geetha V.Kinagi.W/o.Dr.Srinivas Reddy PatilAged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk Hospital, Sedam,Gulbarga District – 585 222.

15. Dr.Shashidhar D.K.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Shanthigram,Hassan Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

16. Dr.Suresh K.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC RangapuraTiptur Tq.Tumkur District – 572 201.

17. Dr.Girish Kumar M.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Aradeshana HalliDevanahalli Tq.Bangalore Rural District – 562 110.

18. Dr.Hanumantharaju C.M.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Namagondlu,Gouribidanur Tq.Chikaballapur District – 562 101.

19. Dr.Venu Gopal N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,Legislature Home Dispensary.Bangalore – 01.

13

20. Dr.Sathish Gangappa Kabade,.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Telsang, Athani Tq.Belgaum District – 591 304.

21. Dr.Balachandra D.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Dasanakoppa, Sirsi Tq.North Kanara District – 581 401.

22. Dr.Rajesh B.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk General HospitalHagarabombanahalli,H.B.Halli Tq.Bellary District – 583 212.

23. Dr.Jagadesh K.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Dandinashivara,Turuvekere Tq.Tumkur District – 572 227.

24. Dr.Marula Siddappa P.M.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Malebennur,Malebennur Tq.Davanagere District– 577 530.

25. Dr.KusumaW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 47 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Rajendranagar,Mysore District – 570 001.

14

26. Dr.RajendraS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 47 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Maravalli, Shikaripura Tq.Shimoga District – 577 427.

27. Dr.Girish P.B.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kalgere,Chitradurga District – 577 501.

28. Dr.Shivana Gouda PatilS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Huligeri, Kushtagi Tq.Koppal District – 584 121.

29. Dr.Kumaraswamy M.Yettinamath,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Asundi, Soundatti Tq.Belgaum District – 590 001.

30. Dr.Mohan Kumar C.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Sringeri,Chikmagalur District – 577 139.

31. Dr.Omprakash Ashok Ambure.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Petammapur, Surapura Tq.Yadgiri District – 588 201.

32. Dr.Venu Gopal K.L.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Pandomatti, Channagere Tq.Davanagere District – 577 213.

15

33. Dr.Mohan S.J.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mydolalau, Bhadravathi Tq.Shimoga District - 577 301.

34. Dr.Jafar Sadik Faqirudin SayedS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC KanamadiBijapur District – 586 101.

35. Dr.MalkajayyaS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk General Hospital,Sindhanur, Shindhanur Tq.Raichur District – 573 201.

36. Dr.Kiran Kumar B.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Hirisave, C.R.Patna Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

37. Dr.Shammi H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Halekote,H.N.Pura Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

38. Dr.Sharana BasavaS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Andola, Jewargi Tq.Gulbarga District – 585 310.

39. Dr.Banadeshwara (Basaveshwara)Gobbur, S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,

16

Working as Medical Officer,PHC Koppar, Devadurga Tq.Raichur District – 584 101.

40. Dr.Manjunath S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Alakapura,Gowribidanur Tq.Chikkaballapura District – 562 101.

41. Dr.Sanganna L.LakkannavarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,District Survelliance Officer,Bijapur – 586 101.

42. Dr.T.L.N.KumariW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 48 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Tiptur, Gubbi Tq.Tumkur District – 572 216.

43. Dr.Anil KumarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Gunjahalli,Raichur Tq.Raichur District – 584 101.

44. Dr.Gopal Govinda HaragiS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC – Korlkai,Siddapura Tq.Uttara Kannada District – 581 355.

45. Dr.Mohankumar S.K.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 45 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Ranganathapura

17

Hiriyur Tq.Chitradurga District – 572 143.

46. Dr.Mahesh B.MoreS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Musturu,Gangavathi Tq.Koppal District – 583 227.

47. Dr.Sathish Babu R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kaggalada Hundi,Gundlupet Tq.Chamarajanagar District – 571 111.

48. Dr.Shashanka S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Taggikuppe, Magadi Tq.Ramanagara District – 562 120.

49. Dr.Hanuma Raddi Giradi L.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk Hospital, Ron,Gadag District – 582 101.

50. Dr.Mohan Kumar G.M.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kulambi, Honnali Tq.Davanagere District – 577 217.

51. Dr.Kumar H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Hosur, K.R.Nagar Tq.Mysore District – 571 602.

18

52. Dr.Girish Sidagondappa PatilS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Ukkali, Bagewadi Tq.Bijapur District – 586 101.

53. Dr.Rajkumar A.BidarkarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Diggoun,Gulbarga District – 585 101.

54. Dr.Nagaraj, S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Hadadi,Davanagere Tq. & District – 577 001.

55. Dr.Hariprasad A.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Indargi, Koppal Tq.Koppal District – 583 231.

56. Dr.Roopa C.Y.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kandagal,Davanagere Taluk,Davanagere District – 577 001.

57. Dr.Depali TelsangW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Yediyur, Kunigal Tq.Tumkur District – 572 130.

58. Dr.Masti Holi Shivananda ChigappaS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,

19

PHC, Murgod, Soundatti Tq.Belgaum District – 590 001.

59. Dr.Madhusudan,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Adagur, K.R.Nagar Tq. Mysore District – 571 602.

60. Dr.Jagadish BiradarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC, MudebiharlMudebihal Tq.Bijapur District – 586 212.

61. Dr.Rajesh S.T.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 42 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Rayee, Bantwal Tq.Dakshina Kannada District – 574 211.

62. Dr.Ashok M.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Bandihole,Krishnarajapet Tq.Mandya District – 571 426.

63. Dr.Ramesh M.C.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Alilaghatta, Gubbi Tq.Tumkur District – 572 216.

64. Dr.Lakshmidevi G.B.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk Hospital Mundegod,Mundegod Tq.U.K. District – 581 349.

20

65. Dr.Jayanth M.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 46 years,Working as Medical Officer,Psychiatry Training at Nimhans,Bangalore. Residing at No.657,17th Main Road, Saraswathipuram,Mysore – 570 001.

66. Dr.Muralidhara P.D.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Devarabelakere,Harihara Tq.Davanagere District – 577 601.

67. Dr.Shantosh KumarS/o.Dr.V.S.Butte,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,General HospitalAurad, Bidar District – 585 401.

68. Dr.Siddappa Balappa Nayak,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,20 Bedded Hospital,Ramanagara, Joida Tq.Karwar District – 581 186.

69. Dr.Arunkumar D,.S/o.Dakshina Murthy,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Vemagal, Kolar Tq.Kolar District – 563 101.

70. Dr.Giridhara S.A.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as LSAS (Life SavingAnesthetic Skill) SpecialistAt Taluk General Hospital,Harihara, Harihara Tq.Davanagere District – 577 601.

21

71. Dr.Somashekhara Kabbera,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital,Munirabad, Koppal Tq.Koppal District – 583 231.

72. Dr.Ravikumar B.V.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Ballala SamudraHosadurga Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 527.

73. Dr.Guruswamy N.T.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC –Ujjini, Kudligi Tq.Bellary District – 583 135.

74. Dr.Geetha S.M. W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC DommasandraAnekal Tq.Bangalore Urban District – 562 106.

75. Dr.Devaraja G.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Ethinaveeraina Kottige,Chitradurga – 577 501.

76. Dr.Faruq JunedaS/o.Mohammad Ilyes,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Dharadahalli,Mudigere Tq.Chickmagalur District – 577 132.

22

77. Dr.Krishna PrasadS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Sanemaralli,Chamarajanagar Tq. & District – 571 313.

78. Dr.Srikanth B.P.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mullur, Hunsur Tq.Mysore District – 571 105.

79. Dr.Sharanagouda Chandrashekar Patil,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,Government Hospital,Devadurga,Raichur District – 584 101.

80. Dr.Shanthosh Kumar V.S.S/o.V.L.Srinivasaiah ShettyAged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Byrakura, Mulbagil Tq.Kolar District – 563 131.

81. Dr.Manjunath Laxmappa ChickaraddiS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hudali, Belgaum Tq.Belgaum District – 590 001.

82. Dr.ShashidharS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Daginakatte,Channagiri Tq.Davanagere District – 577 213.

83. Dr.Revan Sidda B.H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,

23

Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hanumanal, Kushtagi Tq.Kopal District – 584 121.

84. Dr.Ramesh V.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Dommasandra,Anekal Taluk,Bangalore Urban District – 562 106.

85. Dr.Leelavathy N.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk Hospital,Mundaragi, Mundaragi Tq.Gadag District – 582 118.

86. Dr.Gururaj K.J.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Gukunte, Mulabagilu Tq.Kolar District – 563 131.

87. Dr.Mallikarjuna M.P.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kuppagadde, Soraba Tq.Shimoga District – 577 429.

88. Dr.S.R.Chandrik BabuS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Bilikere, Hunsur Tq.Mysore District – 577 105.

89. Dr.Aruna PatilW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, KudligiBellary District – 583 135.

24

90. Dr.Ravi B.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Biliki, Shikaripura Tq.Shimoga District – 577 427.

91. Dr.Jyothi S.Khandre,W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Belura,Basavakalyana Tq.Bidar District – 585 401.

92. Dr.Venkatesha M.P.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Y.N.Hoskote,Pavagada Tq.Tumkur District – 561 202.

93. Dr.Geetha D.H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kusanuru, Hanagal Tq.Haveri District – 581 104.

94. Dr.Mahadevaprasad S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kothegala, Hunsur Tq.Mysore District – 571 105.

95. Dr.Sudhindra G.B.S/o.Basavarajappa J.S.,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Gopanahally,Challakere Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 522.

96. Dr.Shankar Naik N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,

25

Aged about 40 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Madhihalli, Harappanahalli Tq.Davanagere District – 583 131.

97. Dr.Amna Arunachala HegdeW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hiriadaka, Udupi Tq.Udipi District – 576101.

98. Dr.Naveen Kumar H.B.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Yallambalase, Kadur Tq.Chickamangalore District – 577 548.

99. Dr.Chitra N.Ramdas VernekarW/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,Health Centre, Rajyotsanagara,Bellary Tq.Bellary District – 583 101.

100. Dr.K.T.SridharaS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hirekodagi, Koppa Tq.Chickmagalur District – 577 548.

101. Dr.Sudhindranath S.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Koladevi, Mulbagal Tq.Kolar District – 563 131.

102. Dr.Sukumara A.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Agram, Mulabagal Tq.Kolar District – 563 131.

26

103. Dr.Basavaraj Hanumanthappa ThalwarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, Kanapura,Belgaum Dist – 590 001.

104. Dr.Visvanatha Reddy M.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 41 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Hiresindogi, Koppal Tq.Koppal District – 583 231.

105. Dr.Venkatesh Y.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, Hungund, Bagalkot District – 587 118.

106. Dr.Ravindra Goudappa PatilS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hunasikatti,Bailhongal Tq.Belgaum District – 591 102.

107. Dr.T.Mahendra KumarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mudhugere, Channapatna Tq.Ramanagar District – 571 501.

108. Dr.Murugesh K.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Dadadahalli,HD Kote Tq.Mysore District – 571 125.

109. Dr.Udhayashankar S.K.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,

27

Working as Medical Officer,PHC Guddadarangevvanahalli,Chitradurga District – 577 501.

110. Dr.JyothiW/o.Dr.K.Boregowda,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Sathanur,Mandya District – 571 401.

111. Dr.Ravindra Naik KS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHU Sampige, Turuvekere Tq.Tumkur District – 572 227.

112. Dr.Mamatha B.S.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Arasapura,Harappanahalli Tq.Davanagere District – 583 131.

113. Dr.NandakumarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Anwari, Lingasugur Tq.Raichur District – 584 122.

114. Dr.Shashikala R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kakkera, Shorapur Tq.Yadgir District – 585 224.

115. Dr.Radha H.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Muthagadooru,Holalkere Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 526.

28

116. Dr.Venkatesh P.Kalapur,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk General HospitalAland, Gulbarga District – 585 101.

117. Dr.Kiran CS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hanbal, Sakaleshpur Tq.Hassan District – 573 134.

118. Dr.Raghavendra W.KulkarniS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kodla, Sedam Tq.Gulbarga District – 585 222.

119. Dr.Srikanth Mallappa SambraniS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Alnavar,Dharwad District – 580 001.

120. Dr.Priyadarshini N.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,India Population Project – 9,Health Centre, Ashoknagar,Gulbarga District – 585 101.

121. Dr.Subodh Kumar Rai GS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Adyanadka, Bantawal Tq.Dakshina Kannada District – 574 211.

122. Dr.Ravindra R.AnteenS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,

29

PHC AkkathangerahalaGokak Tq.Belgaum District – 591 307.

123. Dr.Neelesh M.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Guddada Komaranahalli,Channagiri Tq.Davanagere District – 577 213.

124. Dr.Srinivasa M.DevadurgaS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Narona, Alanda Tq.Gulbarga District – 585 302.

125. Dr.Shanthakumar K.V.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,General Hospital, H.D.KoteMysore District – 571 125.

126. Dr.Laxmish Naik,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 32 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Bankikodla, Kumta Tq.U.K. District – 581 343.

127. Dr.Kavitha KS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Hanagal, Hanagal Tq.Haveri District – 581 104.

128. Dr.Syeeda Afiya Yasmeen,D/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Konkal, Yadgir Tq.Yadgir District – 585 201.

30

129. Dr.Rashmi M.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC MoodbidriChickmagalur District – 577 101.

130. Dr.Lokesha C.M.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Agile,Hassan Tq.Hassan District – 573 201.

131. Dr.Padmavathi M.W/o.K.Harish,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Avathi, Devanahalli Tq.Bangalore District – 562 110.

132. Dr.Shivakumar L.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Sattegal, Kollegal Tq.Chamarajanagar District – 571 440.

133. Dr.Puttappa S.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Madalu, Arasikere Tq.Hassan District – 573 103.

134. Dr.Hoyisala H.N.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Salagame, Hassan Tq.Hassan District – 577 213.

135. Dr.Jagadeesh K.JinigiS/o.K.B.Jinigi,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,

31

PHC Deshnur, Bailhongal Tq.Belgaum District – 591 102.

136. Dr.Manjuntha.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 31 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Teragaon, Haliyal Tq.U.K. District – 581 329.

137. Dr.NagarajS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,Taluk General HospitalBasavakalyan,Bidar District – 585 327.

138. Dr.Mahesh H.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Hosakere,Madhugere Tq.Tumkur District – 572 132.

139. Dr.Dhanalakshmi D.P.W/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Belegere, Tiptur Tq.Tumkur District – 572 201.

140. Dr.Praveen A.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Gowdihalli, Holalkere Tq.Chitradurga District – 577 526.

141. Dr.Madhusudan M.R.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Saraguru, H.D.Kote Tq.Mysore District – 571 125.

32

142. Dr.Dayamani B,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Siddapura aKadugondanahalli,Bangalore West Tq.Bangalore Urban District –560 045.

143. Dr.Sarala H.S.S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Konehalli,Doddaballapur TalukBangalore Rural District-561203.

144. Dr.Vishwajith NayakS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 43 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kundana, Devanahalli TalukBangalore Rural District.562110.

145. Dr.Parameshwar Suresh KenchannavarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Munavalli, Saundatti TalukBelgaum District – 591 126.

146. Dr.Vikas Parappa SavadiS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mudakavi, Ramadurga TalukBelgaum District – 591 123.

147. Dr.Vijay Kumar.HS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Yelakethane Halli, Nelamangala TalukBangalore Rural District – 562123.

148. Dr.Mohammed Yousnus SaleemS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,

33

PHC Konkal, Yadagir talukYadgir District – 585 201.

149. Dr.ShivakumarS/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Thondebhavi, Gowribidanur TalukChickaballapur District – 571 125.

150. Dr.Shashikumar.S.D,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC D K Halli, Malavalahalli Tq,Mandya District.

151. Dr.Rajkumar R,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Maniganahalli, Magadi Tq,Ramanagara District.

152. Dr.Mallikarjuna G.P,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 31 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Jade, Soraba Tq,Shimoga District.

153. Dr.Santhosh A.N,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,CHC Sirigere, Chitradurga District.

154. Dr.K Satish Babu,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Ellodu, Guddibande Tq,Chickaballapur District.

155. Dr.Meena Kumari T.D,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 37 years,

34

Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mudenura, Kustagi Tq,Koppal District.

156. Dr.Geetha N S,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC M C Halli, Arikere Tq,Chikkamagalur District.

157. Dr.A Ramu,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Somayajalahalli, Srinivasapur Tq,Kolar District.

158. Dr.Anitha N S,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Koddihalli Koppalu,Hassan District – 563 135.

159. Dr.Bharathi P,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kamagere, Kolegal Tq,Chamarajanagara District – 571 443.

160. Dr.Rajendra Prasad T C,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kallanakuppe, Ramanagar Dist-571 511.

161. Dr.Anasuya M,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC N G Halli Tq,Chitradurga District – 577 501.

162. Dr.Naveen R,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,

35

Aged about 31 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC (Extension Unit) Doddapalanahalli,Yelerampura, Koratagere Tq,Tumkur District – 572 129.

163. Dr.Bhanumathi P M,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Mudalapippe, Holenarasipura Tq,Hassan District – 573 211.

164. Dr.Suchetha K R,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 35 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kadusonnappanahalli, Bangalore East Tq,Bangalore Urban District – 562 149.

165. Dr.Veena H N,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Topasandra,Ramanagar District – 562 112.

166. Dr.Dhanya Kumar,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 38 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Kadanur, Doddabalapura Tq,Bangalore Rural District – 561 203.

167. Dr.Raghavendra G S,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 39 years,Working as Medical Officer,PHC Muttodu, Hosadurga Tq,Chitradurga District – 577 527.

168. Dr.Ravi Kanthi,S/o.Not known to the petitioner,Aged about 34 years,Working as Medical Officer,

36

PHC Kamalapura, Gulbarga Tq/District – 585 101.

169. Karnataka Religious and Linguistics MinorityProfessional Colleges Association,Flat No.143, 4th Floor,'Suryamukhi' Garden Apartments,#21, vittal Mallaya Road,Bangalore – 560 001.By its Convener.

170. Consortium of Medical Engineering and DentalColleges of Karnataka,#132, 2nd Floor, 11th Main,17th Cross, Malleswaram,Bangalore – 560 055.By its Convener.

(R-169 and 170 amended as per court order dated 30.5.2012)

… Respondents

(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General andSri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3:

Sri N.K.Ramesh, Advocate for R-4,Sri Siddappa, Sunil and Nitin, Advocates for R-6, 10, 12,

14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 40, 41, 46, 48, 50, 53, 54, 55, 58, 66,

Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate for R-68, 70, 71, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 90, 94, 97, 115, 123,M/s. P.S.Rajagopal Associates for R-127, 130, 131,

133, 134, 144,151, 157, 159, 168,Sri V.R.Sarathy, Advocate for R-7, 8 and 16,K.Shashikiran Shetty, Advocate for R-170,

Sri C.H.Hanumantharaya and Associates for R-18 and 65)

These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to declare that the inclusion of R-125 to 160 in the departmental merit list of in-service candidates for post graduation degree/diploma selection for the year 2012-13 published by the R-3 vide Annexure-E to the W.P. is illegal and contrary to the notification dated 18.12.2007 and etc.

37

WP No.14430/2012

BETWEEN :

Dr.Kavitha K,W/o Dr.Nagaraj Kuri,Aged about 33 years,Working as Medical Officer,Community Health Centre,Hanagal, Hanagal Taluk,Haveri District – 581 104. … Petitioner

(By Sri N.Sonnegowda, Advocate) AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,Represented by its Secretary,Department of Health andFamily Welfare,M.S.Building, Bangalore – 560 001.

2. The Commissioner,Health and Family Welfare,Ananda Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Director,Health and Family Welfare,Ananda Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

4. The Mission Director,National Rural Health Mission (NRHM)Health and Family Welfare,Ananda Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

5. The Director,Medical Education Services, (PGET)Health and Family Welfare,Ananda Rao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009. … Respondents

(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General andSri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-5)

38

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records ending with the circular dated 11.4.12 issued in No.JRO (M) 63/11-12 and provisional list published in the website by the R2 herein vide Annex-G and etc.

WP Nos.16337-16349/2012

BETWEEN :

1. Dr.C.M.Lokesha,Aged about 33 years,S/o P.M.Malleshappa,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Agile, Hassan TalukHassan District – 573 201.

2. Dr.K.Kavitha,Aged about 33 years,D/o K.Doddanagabusappa,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Hanagal, Hanagal Taluk,Haveri District – 581 104.

3. Dr.Parasappa G Churchihal,Aged about 30 years,S/o Gurappa P Churchihal,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Hosur, Savadatti Taluk,Belgaum District – 591 111.

4. Dr.P.Bharathi,Aged about 33 years,D/o B.C.Premkumar,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Kamagere, Kollegal Taluk,Chamarajnagar District – 571 440.

5. Dr.Jagadish K Jingi,Aged about 34 years,S/o K.G.Jingi,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,

39

Deshnur, Bailhongal Taluk,Belgaum District – 591 147.

6. Dr.A.Ramu,Aged about 37 years,S/o G Anjaneya,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Somayajalahalli,Srinivasapur Taluk,Kolar District – 563 138.

7. Dr.S.R.Puttappa,Aged about 32 years,S/o Rangappa,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Madalu, Arasikere Taluk,Hassan District – 573 117.

8. Dr.M.Padmavathi,Aged about 33 years,D/o M.Sathyanarayana,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Avathi, Devenahalli Taluk,Bangalore Rural District – 562 110.

9. Dr.R.Raja Kumar,Aged about 33 years,S/o M.R.Renukappa,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Maniganahalli, Magadi Taluk,Ramanagara District – 562 120.

10. Dr.Ravikanti,Aged about 33 years,W/o Dr.Sharanabasappa,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Kamalapur, Taluk & District Gulbarga – 585 313.

11. Dr.C.Vishwajit Naik,Aged about 41 years,S/o Champala Naik,

40

Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Kundana, Devenahalli Taluk,Bangalore Rural District – 562 110.

12. Dr.Hoyisala.H.N,S/o Nanjappa S NAged about 36 years,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Salagame, Hassan – 573 219.

13. Dr.M.G.Nagaraju,Aged about 39 years,S/o K.H.Gopal,Working as Medical Officer,Primary Health Centre,Kanasawadi, Madhure Hobli,Doddaballapur Taluk,Bangalore Rural District – 561 203.

… Petitioners

(By Sri M.N.Prasanna, Advocate)

AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,Department of Health & Family Welfare,Vikas Soudha, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi,Bangalore – 560 001 represented byIts Principal Secretary.

2. The Commissioner,Health & Family Welfare Services,Anandarao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

3. The Director of Health & FamilyWelfare, Directorate of Health &Family Welfare Services,Anandarao Circle,Bangalore – 560 009.

4. The Rajiv Gandhi University ofHealth Services, 4th ‘T’ Block,Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 041,Represented by its Registrar.

41

5. Dr.K.R.Mohan Kumar,S/o not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC Koyira, Devanahalli Taluk,Bangalore Rural District.

6. Dr.M.N.Girish Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Aaradeshahalli,Devanahalli Taluk,Bangalore Rural District.

7. Dr.H.M.Lohitha,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,District Hospital, Chikkamagalur.

8. Dr.B.Lakshmidevi,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,TBP Hospital, Tungabhadra Road,T.B.Dam, Hospet.

9. Dr.L.M.Vasanth Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Aarakere (B), Yadgiri District.

10. Dr.S.Venugopal,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,L.H.Hospital, Bangalore.

11. Dr.C.M.Hanumantharaju,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC Namagondlu, Gowribidanur Taluk,Chikkaballapur District.

42

12. Dr.Sathish Gangappa,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Telasanga, Chikkodi Taluk,Belgaum District.

13. Dr.C.T.Divya Kumari,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kanchanahalli,Hassan District.

14. Dr.M.Uma,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,KCG Hospital, Malleshwaram,Bangalore – 560 011.

15. Dr.D.Balachandra,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Dasanakoppa,Shirasi Taluk, U.K.District.

16. Dr.Basanagowda Karigowdara,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,THO, Mundaragi, Mudaragi Taluk,Gadag District.

17. Dr.M.Hema,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, Devanahalli,Bangalore Rural District.

18. Dr.K.Jagadish,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Dandinashivara,Turuvekere Taluk,Tumkur District.

43

19. Dr.B.R.Rajesh,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, Hagaribommanahalli,Bellary District.

20. Dr.Rajendra,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PCH, Maravalli, Shikaripura Taluk,Shimoga District.

21. Dr.P.B.Girish,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kalgere,Chitradurga District.

22. Dr.P.M.Marulasiddappa,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Malebennuru, Harihara Taluk,Davangere District.

23. Dr.Kusuma,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,IPP-8, Health Centre,Rajendranagar, Mysore District.

24. Dr.Hifjur Rehaman,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Shirur, Kundapura Taluk,Udupi District.

25. Dr.Kumaraswamy Yettinamath,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Asundi, Savadatti Taluk,Belgaum District.

26. Dr.Shivanagowda Patil,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age,

44

Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Holagera, Kustagi Taluk,Koppal District.

27. Dr.C.Mohan Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Shringeri, Shringeri Taluk,Chikamagalur District.

28. Dr.D.G.Kishor Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Kushalnagar,Kodagu District.

29. Dr.H.N.Sundaresh,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Nandipura, Madigere Taluk,Chikkamagalur District.

30. Dr.Om Prakash Ambure,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Peta Ammapura,Yadagiri District.

31. Dr.M.D.Khaja Mohinuddin,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Pamanakalluru,Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.

32. Dr.K.L.Venugopal,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Pandomatti, Channagiri Taluk,Davangere District.

33. Dr.S.J.Mohan,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Mysolal, Bhadravathi Taluk,Shimoga District.

45

34. Dr.Suresh,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Anandapura,Sagar Taluk, Shimoga District.

35. Dr.K.M.Vrunda Prabhu,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Mallanduru,Chikkamagalur District.

36. Dr.V.Revathi,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Avalahalli, Bangalore East Tq.,Bangalore (U) District.

37. Dr.B.Raju,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, Hunasuru, Mysore District.

38. Dr.Kavitha Pattanashetti,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Melavanaki,Belgaum District.

39. Dr.Jafarsadik Faqiruddin Saiyad,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kanamadi,Bijapur Taluk & District.

40. Dr.Malkajayya,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, Sindhanuru,Raichur District.

41. Dr.O.Mallappa,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Antgaragange,Bhadravathi Taluk,Shimoga District.

46

42. Dr.Sanjeev Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kavaluru, Yadgiri District.

43. Dr.B.Kiran Kumar,Father’s name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Hirisave,Channarayapatna Taluk,Hassan District.

44. Dr.H.Shammi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Halekote, Holenarasipura Taluk,Hassan District.

45. Dr.M.G.Ashok,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Hittala, Shikaripura Taluk,Shimoga District.

46. Dr.L.Vijayalaxmi,,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Dibbura,Chikaballapur District.

47. Dr.R.Srinivas,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Hittala, Shikaripura Taluk,Shimoga District.

48. Dr.R.Sathya Narayana,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Paduvalahippe, Holenarasipura Taluk,Hassan District.

49. Dr.Gunari Sampath,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Malaghana, Sindagi Taluk,Bijapur District.

47

50. Dr.D.Madhav,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, K.R.Nagar,Mysore District.

51. Dr.H.M.Suresh Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC,Manne, Nelamangala Taluk,Bangalore (R) District.

52. Dr.P.Geethapriya,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, K.M.Doddi, Maddur Taluk,Mandya District.

53. Dr.Veena P Itnalmath,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Dodawada, Bylahongala Taluk,Belgaum District.

54. Dr.Sharanabasava,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Andola, Jeevargi Taluk,Gulbarga District.

55. Dr.S.Manjunatha,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Alakapura, Gowribidanur Taluk,Chikkaballapura District.

56. Dr.Banadeshwara Gabbura,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Koppara, Raichur District.

57. Dr.K.S.Rashmi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Jagadapura, Channapatna Taluk,Ramanagar District.

48

58. Dr.Sunil Evans Jattanna,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kudupu,Dakshina Kannada District.

59. Dr.Raghu T Gokhale,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Nonavinakere, Tipturu Taluk,Tumkur District.

60. Dr.B.Srinivas,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kannali, Bangalore North Tq.,Bangalore (U) District.

61. Dr.Sanganna Lakkappa Lakkannavar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,DSO,Bijapura.

62. Dr.Mahadeva Nayaka,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,DSO, Chamarajnagar.

63. Dr.H.T.Harish,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,THO, K.R.Pete, Mandya District.

64. Dr.G.S.Shreedhar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,CHC, Udayapura, Channapatna Taluk,Hassan District.

65. Dr.G.B.Lingaraju,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH, Hosanagara, Hosanagara Taluk,Shimoga District.

66. Dr.T.L.N.Kumari,Father's name not known to the petitioners,

49

major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Tipaturu, Gubbi Taluk,Tumkur District.

67. Dr.H.K.Ramesh,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kodihalli, Kanakapura Taluk,Ramanagara District.

68. Dr.Anil Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Gunjalli, RaichurTaluk & District.

69. Dr.S.L.Mohan Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,GH Kunigal, Tumkur District.

70. Dr.P.H.Jayaram,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,DH, Chitraduraga.

71. Dr.S.K.Mohan Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Ranganathapura Hiriyuru Taluk,Chitradurga District.

72. Dr.Gopala G Hargi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Korlakai, Siddapura Taluk,U.K.

73. Dr.R.Manjula,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Nanjihalli, Srinivasapura Taluk,Kolar District.

74. Dr.Mahesh B.More,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,

50

PHC, Musturu, Gangavathi Taluk,Koppala District.

75. Dr.R.Satish Babu,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kaggaladahundi, Gundlupet Taluk,Chamarajnagar District.

76. Dr.S.Shashanka,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Taggikuppe, Magadi Taluk,Ramanagara District.

77. Dr.G.M.Mohan Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kulambi, Honnali Taluk,Davangere District.

78. Dr.H.L.Giraddi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Rona, Rona Taluk,Gadag District.

79. Dr.C.Y.Roopa,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kundagal, Davangere Taluk & District.

80. Dr.S.C.Mastiholi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Muragoda, Savadatti Taluk,Belgaum District.

81. Dr.Shankar Rao,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kadatoka.

51

82. Dr.G.S.Nagappa,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Rayakoppalu, AluruTaluk,Hassan District.

83. Dr.D.N.Nagalaxmi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kowshika, Hassan Taluk & District.

84. Dr.M.Brahmehndra,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,District Hospital,Chamarajnagar.

85. Dr.D.Basavaraja,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Raravi, Siraguppa Taluk,Bellary District.

86. Dr.Asha Abikar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,Deputy Director (PHCF), K.H.S.D.R.P., Bangalore.

87. Dr.M.Ashok,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Bondihole, K.r.Pete Taluk,Mandya District.

88. Dr.Jagadish G Biradara,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Muddebihala, Bijapura Taluk & District.

52

89. Dr.S.T.Rajesh,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Rayi, Bantwala Taluk,Dakshina Kannada District.

90. Dr.C.H.Praveen Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,DHO, Bangalore (R).

91. Dr.B.S.Balakrishna,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,THO, Shrirangapattanna,Mandya District.

92. Dr.S.R.Suma,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Hosadurga, Chitraduraga District.

93. Dr.M.C.Remesh,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Alaughatta, Gubbi Taluk,Tumkur District.

94. Dr.S.P.Channakeshava,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Tovinakere, Koratagere Taluk,Tumkur District.

95. Dr.M.V.Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Jayanagar, Bangalore.

53

96. Dr.Narasimha Murthy,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Bagaluru, Bangalore North Taluk,Bangalore (U) District.

97. Dr.S.H.Dasharatha,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,District Civil Hospital, Bijapura.

98. Dr.K.S.Nataraja,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,DHO, Shimoga.

99. Dr.N.T.Murali,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kittanagamangala, Kunigal Taluk,Tumkur District.

100. Dr.N.Vanishree,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,

101. Dr.Ashoka Venkobarao,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,DTO, Bangalore Rural District.

102. Dr.A.Kavitha Rani,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,H.S.Y.S. Ghosha Hospital, Bangalore.

103. Dr. M.K.Satish,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,DSO, Madikere.

104. Dr.Kamalamma,Father's name not known to the petitioners,

54

Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Hadagali, Bellary District.

105. Dr.D.Jayalakshmi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Challakere, Chtradurga District.

106. Dr.B.Omkaramurthy,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,DH, Chitradurga District.

107. Dr.Nagesh,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Kandluru, Kundapura Taluk,Udupi District.

108. Dr.Vasantha,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, avinahalli, Sagar Taluk,Shimoga District.

109. Dr.B.M.Shivaswamy,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Byramangala, Ramanagara Taluk & District.

110. Dr.Chandrakala,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,Metarnity Hospital, Bhashanagar,Davanagere.

111. Dr.Suresh Pujar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Aduru, Hanagal Taluk,Haveri District.

55

112. Dr.K.S.Mohan,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,THO, Sagara Taluk,Shimoga.

113. Dr.B.C.Jaganath,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, N.Belatturu, H.D.Kote Taluk,Mysore District.

114. Dr.H.J.Shalini,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,UFWC, Jeppu, Mangalore.

115. Dr.Remash H.Sanni,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Badami, Bagalkote Taluk & District.

116. Dr.H.R.Rajashekaraiah,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,PHC, Honnamacchanahalli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.

117. Dr.C.S.Sathish Kumar,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Talikote, Muddebihal Taluk,Bijapur District.

118. Dr.Sharanappa Mudabi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Hallikhed (B), Humnabad Taluk,Bidar District.

119. Dr.M.H.Amaresh,Father's name not known to the petitioners,Major by age, Working as Medical Officer,CHC, Hebbala, Gulbarga Taluk & District.

56

120. Dr.S.R.Krishnamurthy,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,GH, Helamangala Taluk,Bangalore Rural District.

121. Dr.Neetha Bilagi,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, Working as Medical Officer,Urban Health Centre, Nehrunagar,Dharwad District.

122. Dr.S.Usha Vanashree,Father's name not known to the petitioners,major by age, working as Medical Officer,PHC, Meluru, Shidlaghatta Taluk,Chikkaballapura District.

… Respondents

(By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Additional Advocate General and Sri N.B.Vishwanath, AGA for R-1 to R-3;


These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the circular dated 16.5.12 vide Annx-L along with the Annexure notifying the list of in-service candidates who have completed above 5 years for the purpose of admission to postgraduate degree issued by R3 and also notification dated 18.5.12 allotting college wise seats pursuant to first round of counseling dated 17.5.12 for medical in-service candidates (vide Annx-V issued by R4 by issue of writ in the nature of certiorari and direct the respondents/state government and the R4/university to redo the counseling in terms of the merit obtained by the petitioners as stipulated by the state government in the provisional merit list dated 11.4.12 under Annx-J and etc.

These writ petitions having been heard and reserved for orders on 01.06.2012, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court made the following:

57

O R D E R

These petitions involve the dispute amongst the in-

service doctors seeking admission to postgraduate medical

courses.

2. The grievance of the thirty petitioners in

W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 is over the

inclusion of the respondent Nos.5 to 168 in the provisional

departmental merit list of in-service candidates for admission

to the postgraduate degree and diploma courses for the year

2012-2013. The said petitioners are contending that the

respondent Nos.5 to 168 are ineligible to be included in the

said list, because they have not completed six years of

service. The respondent Nos.5 to 66 are absorbed as regular

doctors by virtue of the Karnataka Civil Service (Absorption of

Doctors appointed on Contract Basis in the Karnataka

Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services) (Special)

Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as ‘2006 Absorption Rules’).

Rule 3(2) of the 2006 Absorption Rules contains the condition

that they shall not be eligible for deputation for higher studies

unless they have worked for atleast a period of 6 years in the

rural areas.

3. Similarly, the respondent Nos.67 to 124 are absorbed

by virtue of the Karnataka Civil Service (Absorption of Doctors

58

appointed on Contract Basis in the Karnataka Directorate of

Health and Family Welfare Services) (Special) Rules, 2007

(hereinafter called as ‘2007 Absorption Rules’). Rule 3(2) of

the 2007 Absorption Rules also contains the same condition as

found in the 2006 Absorption Rules. The respondent Nos.125

to 168 are directly recruited in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The

notifications, dated 18.12.2007, 8.2.2008 and 9.1.2009

issued in respect of the recruitments made in 2007, 2008 and

2009 respectively also contain the following conditions:

i) They shall compulsorily work for 6 years in the

rural area during their service.

ii) They are not entitled to continue their

postgraduate education, if they are doing the said

course.

4. As the said Rules and notifications contain these

conditions and as the respondent Nos.5 to 168 have not

completed 6 years of service, they are not eligible to take part

in the forthcoming Entrance Test for admission to

postgraduate medical degree/diploma courses (‘PGET 2012’

for short).

5. Sri Madhusudan R.Naik, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for Sri Reuben Jacob for the petitioners in

59

W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 submits

that the participation of the respondent Nos.5 to 168 is in

clear violation of Rule 3(2) of the 2006 and 2007 Absorption

Rules and the notifications under or by virtue of which they

are appointed. The inclusion of their names in the merit list is

contrary to the very condition under which they are

appointed. Certain amendments are directed towards the

unauthorised end of making the respondent Nos.5 to 168

eligible, who are otherwise ineligible, to apply for admission to

postgraduate medical courses.

6. The learned Senior Counsel assails the notification,

dated 21.2.2012, which amends the 2006 and 2007

Absorption Rules by omitting the condition that the absorbed

doctors shall not be deputed for higher studies for a period of

six years.

7. He also takes serious exception to the omission of the

said condition retrospectively. Though the notification itself is

issued on 21.2.2012, the omission is deemed to have come

into force from 30.12.2011. The said retrospective

amendment has negatively affected the vested right of the

petitioners, which is impermissible in law.

60

8. He sought to draw the support from the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.

TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY AND OTHERS reported in

(1994) 5 SCC 450, wherein it is held the power to make

laws with retrospective effect cannot be used to deprive a

person of an accrued right vested in him. The relevant

paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow:

“14. The legislatures and the competent authority

under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have the

power to make laws with retrospective effect. This

power, however, cannot be used to justify the

arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional acts of the

Executive. When a person is deprived of an accrued

right vested in him under a statute or under the

Constitution and he successfully challenges the same

in the court of law, the legislature cannot render the

said right and the relief obtained nugatory by enacting

retrospective legislation.

15. Respectfully following the law laid down by this

Court in the judgments referred to and quoted above,

we are of the view that the retrospective operation of

the amended Rule 13 cannot be sustained. We are

satisfied that the retrospective amendment of Rule 13

of the Rules takes away the vested rights of Mohanty

and other general category candidates senior to

respondents 2 to 9. We, therefore, declare amended

Rule 13 to the extent it has been made operative

retrospectively to be unreasonable, arbitrary and, as

such, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

of India. We strike down the retrospective operation of

61

the rule. In the view we have taken on the point it is

not necessary to deal with the other contentions raised

by Mohanty.”

9. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the Apex

Court’s judgment in the case P.D.AGARWAL AND OTHERS

v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (1987) 3 SCC

622 to strengthen his argument that the vested right cannot

be taken away by retrospective amendment of statute or

statutory rules arbitrarily and unreasonably. While advancing

the contention that the rules of the game cannot be changed

once the game itself is played, he cited the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of K.MANJUSHREE v. STATE OF

ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 3

SCC 512.

10. The learned Senior Counsel also read out para 11 of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of

N.T.DEVIN KATTI AND OTHERS v. KARNATAKA PUBLIC

SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS reported in (1990)

3 SCC 157. It is as follows:

“11. There is yet another aspect of the question.

Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for

direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the

advertisement expressly states that selection shall be

made in accordance with the existing rules or

government orders, and if it further indicates the

62

extent of reservations in favour of various categories,

the selection of candidates in such a case must be

made in accordance with the then existing rules and

the government orders. Candidates who apply, and

undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right

for being considered for selection in accordance with

the terms and conditions contained in the

advertisement, unless the advertisement itself

indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate

has right to be considered in accordance with the

terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as

his right crystallises on the date of publication of

advertisement, however he has no absolute right in

the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended

retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in

that event selection must be held in accordance with

the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have

retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the

language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain

the legislative intent. The legislative intent is

ascertained either by express provision or by

necessary implication; if the amended Rules are not

retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated

in accordance with the rules and orders which were in

force on the date of advertisement. Determination of

this question largely depends on the facts of each case

having regard to the terms and conditions set out in

the advertisement and the relevant rules and orders.

Lest there be any confusion, we would like to make it

clear that a candidate on making application for a post

pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any

vested right of selection, but if he is eligible and is

otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant

rules and the terms contained in the advertisement,he

63

does acquire a vested right of being considered for

selection in accordance with the rules as they existed

on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived

of that limited right on the amendment of rules during

the pendency of selection unless the amended rules

are retrospective in nature.”

11. The doctors recruited in 2007, 2008 and 2009 have

not completed five years of regular service as provided under

the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, 1958 ('KCSR' for short).

The KCSR prescribe minimum five years of regular service as

the pre-requirement for deputation to higher studies.

12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the State is

not justified in trying to create equality between the two

unequal groups (absorbed doctors and directly recruited

doctors).

13. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the

weightage of 8 marks for every completed year of rural

service is manifestly arbitrary. He wonders as to what is so

sacrosanct about 8 marks. The Rules do not disclose the

basis as to how the Government has arrived at the figure of 8

marks. He submits that the upholding of the additional

weightage of 8 marks by the Apex Court in the case of STATE

OF M.P vs. GOPAL D.TIRTHANI AND OTHERS reported in

(2003)7 SCC 83 is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

64

the said case. The parameters of the said case are not

available here. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case

has said that the quantum for the additional weightage in

rural/tribal areas has to be reasonable, rational and on the

application of mind.

14. The learned Senior Counsel submits that as the

Government doctors would not have any say in the matter of

their posting, those who are posted to rural areas, are getting

the unfair advantage over those, who are posted to urban

areas, in the matter of admission to the postgraduate courses.

He complains of the gross discrimination and irrationality in

the quantum of rural weightage.

15. W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 is filed seeking a writ of

certiorari for quashing the notification, dated 21.2.2012

omitting the condition that the absorbed in-service doctors

cannot be deputed for higher studies for a period of 6 years.

The said petitions are filed by the doctors, who have been in

the services of the Government but on contract basis from

1998. They were absorbed in 2006 by virtue of the 2006

Absorption Rules. Their grievance is that the flood-gates for

all in-service candidates are opened regardless of their date of

absorption and period of regular service.

65

16. Sri Nithin, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that Appendix II-A to KCSR prescribes a minimum

period of 5 years of regular service for deputation for higher

studies. Under 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules, as they stood

unamended, the condition is 6 years of regular service in the

rural areas. Thus, if the omission of the 6 years condition

from the Absorption Rules is upheld, then also, the in-service

doctors cannot seek deputation unless they have completed 5

years of service as per the KCSR. The Karnataka Conduct of

Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to Postgraduate

Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course, 2006 ('PGET

Rules' for short) lay down the prescription that unless an in-

service doctor has completed 3 years of regular services, he is

not eligible for the said Test. When an in-service doctor

cannot be deputed for higher studies, even if he is permitted

to appear for the entrance examination, it serves no useful

purpose. Hence, the doctors appointed/ absorbed from 2007

onwards cannot be permitted to take part in the process of

admissions and selection. He submits that the junior batches

of doctors have to wait patiently till the turn of their batches

comes. He read out para 4 of the Division Bench judgment,

dated 7.6.2011 passed in W.A.Nos.4457-4461/2011 and other

connected appeals, wherein it is held that the in-service

doctors are required to complete 6 years of service after their

66

absorption, before they can seek to be deputed to a

postgraduate course.

17. He submits that he is pressing only

W.P.No.15366/2012.

18. He submits that the doctors absorbed in 2006 meet

the eligibility criteria prescribed under all the three sets of

Rules – KCSR, 2006 Absorption Rules and PGET Rules.

19. He would also contend that only those batches of

doctors, who are recruited/absorbed upto 2006 alone are

entitled to grace (weightage) marks and not the 2007 and

downward batches.

20. W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811-

15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 are filed by the in-service

doctors, who were appointed on contract basis in 1999-2000.

Their services were regularized in 2007. Their grievance is

over their exclusion from the counseling operations as a

consequence of the issuance of the impugned circular, dated

16.5.2012 (Annexure-Q), which itself is said to be in the wake

of the granting of the interim order in W.P.Nos.15365-

15366/2012.

21.Sri Uday Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

for Smt.Akkamahadevi Hiremath for the petitioners in

67

W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811-15812/2012, 15813-

15816/2012 submits that the first petitioner has topped the

merit list by securing the highest number of marks. He

submits that the petitioners have put in nearly 13 years of

unbroken service as Government doctors.

22. The learned Senior Counsel submits that if there is

repugnancy between the KCSR and the Absorption Rules, the

latter shall prevail over the former. He submits that the KCSR

being a general Rule does not prevail over the PGET Rules. As

the deputation of doctors for higher studies is governed by the

said provisions contained in Absorption Rules, the applicability

of Appendix II-A to KCSR stands excluded. For contending

that the special rules prevail over the general rule, he relied

on the following authorities:

i) (2010) 4 SCC 498 – Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala and others.

ii) (1985) 4 SCC 645 – S.C.Jain v. State of Haryana and another.

iii) AIR 1991 SC 855 – Ashoka Marketing Ltd. and another v. Punjab National Bank and others.

23. Sri Holla cites another reason for contending that

Appendix II-A has no application in the matter of admission to

postgraduate courses for in-service doctors; it states that the

68

deputation has to be purely on the basis of seniority. If the

deputation is to be only on the basis of seniority, then there

is no need to hold the entrance test for the in-service doctors.

The admission process to the postgraduate course is as per

the PGET Rules and not as per Appendix II-A.

24. For advancing the contention that KCSRs applies

only if they are not inconsistent with the Absorption Rules, he

read out Rule 5 of the Absorption Rules, which are extracted

hereinbelow:

“5. The provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services

Rules, the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,

1966 and all other rules regulating the conditions of

service of Government servants in so far as they are

not inconsistent with the provisions of these rules,

shall apply to persons absorbed under these rules.”


Government has thought it fit to omit 6 years’ embargo for

eligibility to deputation for higher studies with the objective of

encouraging the talented Government doctors before the

downhill sets in their enthusiasm. He submits that the draft

notification for omitting 6 years embargo was issued on

30.12.2011. The said notification specifically stated that the

amendment shall come into force with effect from 30.12.2011

Nobody including the petitioners in W.P.No.15417/2012 and

W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012 have

69

filed objections to the said draft notification. Therefore, they

are not justified in challenging the final notification.

26. He submits that Section 8 of the Karnataka Civil

Services Act, 1978, under which the Absorption Rules are

amended by omitting the 6 years’ embargo with retrospective

effect, read as follows:

“8. Power to make rules.– (1) The State

Government may, by notification, make rules to carry

out the purposes of this Act.

(2) Any rule made under this Act may be made

with retrospective effect and when such a rule is

made, the reasons for making the rule shall be

specified in a statement to be laid before both Houses

of the State Legislature and subject to any

modification made under sub-section (3), every rule

made under this Act shall have effect as if it is enacted

in this Act.

(3) Every rule made under this Act shall be laid as

soon as may be, after it is made, before each House of

the State Legislature while it is in session for a total

period of thirty days which may be comprised in one

session or in two or more successive sessions, and if

before the expiry of the session in which it is so laid or

the sessions immediately following both Houses agree

in making any modification in the rule of or both

Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the

rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified

form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so,

however, that any notification or annulment shall be

without prejudice to the validity of anything previously

done under that rule.”

70

27. On the permissibility of the retrospective

amendments, he read out para 31 from the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of STATE BANK’S STAFF UNION

(MADRAS CIRCLE) v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

reported in (2005) 7 SCC 584.

“31. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that vested rights cannot be taken away by the

legislature by way of retrospective legislation. The

plea is without substance. Whenever any amendment

is brought in force retrospectively or any provision of

the Act is deleted retrospectively, in this process rights

of some are bound to be affected one way or the

other. In every case the exercise by the legislature by

introducing a new provision or deleting an existing

provision with retrospective effect per se does not

amount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The legislature can change, as observed by this Court

in Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, Re the basis on

which a decision is given by the Court and thus change

the law in general, which will affect a class of persons

and events at large. It cannot, however, set aside an

individual decision inter partes and affect their rights

and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part of the

legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power by

the State and to function as an appellate court or

tribunal, which is against the concept of separation of

powers.”

28. He has also relied on the following authorities:

i) AIR 2003 SC 2236 – Bakhtawar Trust and others v. M.D.Narayan and others.

71

ii) (1988) 2 SCC 201 – K.V.Subba Rao and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.

iii) AIR 1963 SC 274 – Dr.Indramani Pyarelal Gupta and others v. W.R.Natu and others.

iv) (2006) 3 SCC 620 – Mahabir Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd. and another v. State of Haryana and others.

v) (1990) 3 SCC 157 – N.T.Devin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others.

vi) (2004) 1 SCC 712 – Dharam Dutt and others v. Union of India and others.

vii) (2011) 13 SCC 383 – State of Jharkhand and others v. Ashok Kumar Dangi and others.

29. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the PGET

Rules states that an in-service doctor is eligible for admission

to PGET, if he has put in not less than 3 years of regular

service, as on 31st March of the year of admission, which in

the instant case is 31.3.2012. In this regard, he read out

Rule 10(1)(a) of the PGET Rules. It is extracted hereinbelow:

“10. Government of Karnataka in-service

candidates.

1. No in-service candidate shall be eligible for

admission under these rules:-

a. Unless he/she has put in not less than Three

years of regular service in the concerned

department as on 31st March of year of

admission. (As amended in Government

72

Notification No.HFW 593 MPS 2010, dated

18.1.2011 and 7.4.2011.”

30. On the introduction of the weightage of 8 marks to

the in-service doctors, who have served in rural areas, it is Sri

Holla’s submission that the Government has thought it fit to

give such weightage only to attract the doctors to the rural

areas. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the embargo

of 6 years was an onerous clause, which was not in public

interest.


Heydon’s Rule (Mischief Rule) squarely applies. While

interpreting a section of an enactment, one must consider

what was the earlier law and what was the mischief that was

sought to be remedied by the amendment or new section.

Relying on the Apex Court’s judgment in the cases of

BENGAL IMMUNITY CO. LTD. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND

OTHERS and QUARRY OWNER’S ASSOCIATION v. STATE

OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1955 SC 661 and

(2000) 8 SCC 655 he submits that the Courts must adopt

the construction which suppresses the mischief and advances

the remedy. The mischief was that for a period of 6 years, the

in-service doctors were not entitled to be deputed to higher

studies. This mischief is remedied by amending the 2006 and

2007 Absorption Rules.

73

32. W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 is filed by the doctors,

who were initially appointed on contract basis between 2003

and 2005. Subsequently, they were appointed by direct

recruitment pursuant to the selection process by the State

Government between 2007 and 2009. Their grievance is over

the drawing of the ranking list, which itself is said to be in the

wake of the passing of the interim order in two petitions.

(W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and

W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012).

33. Sri M.N.Prasanna, the learned counsel for the

petitioners in W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 (who are the

respondents in W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-

664/2012) submits that the awarding of the weightage of 8

marks for every completed year of rural service beyond five

years of service is rational and hence justifiable. He read out

para 36 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Gopal D.Tirthani case (supra).

“36. We sum up our conclusions as under:

4. It is permissible to assign a reasonable

weightage to services rendered in rural/tribal

areas by the in-service candidates for the

purpose of determining inter se merit within the

class of in-service candidates who have qualified

74

in the pre-PG test by securing the minimum

qualifying marks as prescribed by the Medical

Council of India.”

34. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners in

W.P.Nos.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 are

estopped from challenging the selection process, as they have

participated in it with their eyes wide open under the teeth of

the notifications, dated 18.1.2011 and 7.4.2011. They took a

chance in the selection process and on finding themselves

abysmally low in merit list are now turning down and raising

the challenge to the selection process. He submits that the

said parties are not justified in challenging the introduction of

Rule 5A by the notification, dated 18.1.2011, as they have got

30 marks weightage added to their marks by virtue of the

same Rule. Even when they are given 30 marks weightage,

they are not in a position to qualify for the seats in the service

quota.

35. For buttressing his submissions, the learned counsel

relies on the Apex Court judgment in the case of MANISH

KUMAR SHAHI v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported

in (2010) 12 SCC 576, wherein it is held that a candidate

who has participated in the selection process and failed to

qualify cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the

75

process of selection. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment read

by him, is as follows:

“16. We also agree with the High Court that after

having taken part in the process of selection knowing

fully well that more than 90% marks have been

earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not

entitled to challenge the criteria or process of

selection. Surely, if the petitioner’s name had

appeared in the merit list, he would not have even

dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner

invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226

of the Constitution of India only after he found that his

name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the

Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly

disentitles him from questioning the selection and the

High Court did not commit any error by refusing to

entertain the writ petition. Reference in this

connection may be made to the judgments in Madan

Lal v. State of J & K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of

A.P., Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, Amal

Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v.

Indian Airlines.”

36. The learned counsel also read out paragraph Nos.7

to 10 from the Apex Court judgment in the case of

DHANANJAY MALIK AND OTHERS v. STATE OF

UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 4 SCC

171. They are extracted hereinbelow:

“7. It is not disputed that the respondent – writ

petitioners herein participated in the process of

76

selection knowing fully well that the educational

qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement

itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical

Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the

process of selection without any demur they are

estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter

alia that the advertisement and selection with regard

to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to

the Rules.

8. In Madal Lal v. State of J & K this Court pointed

out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral

interview conducted by the members concerned of the

Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as

the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners

took a chance to get themselves selected at the said

oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not

find themselves to have emerged successful as a

result of their combined performance both at written

test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions.

This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes

a calculated chance and appears at the interview,

then, only because the result of the interview is not

palatable to him, he cannot turn round and

subsequently contend that the process of interview

was unfair or the Selection Committee was not

properly constituted.

9. In the present case, as already pointed out, the

respondent – writ petitioners herein participated in the

selection process without any demur; they are

estopped from complaining that the selection process

was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think

that the advertisement and selection process were not

in accordance with the Rules they could have

77

challenged the advertisement and selection process

without participating in the selection process. This has

not been done.

10. In a recent judgment in Marripati Nagaraja

v.Govt. of A.P., SCR at p.516, this Court has succinctly

held that the appellants had appeared at the

examination without any demur. They did not question

the validity of fixing the said date before the

appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped

and precluded from questioning the selection process."

37. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the

Apex Court’s judgment in the case of VIJENDRA KUMAR

VERMA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS reported in (2011) 1 SCC

510. Head Note ‘D’ of the said reported decision is extracted

hereinbelow:

“D. Service Law – Recruitment process – Challenge

to recruitment process – Acquiescence – Challenge to

selection criteria after participating in selection

process– Impermissibility of – Appellant appeared for

examinations and was declared to be successful in

written examinations – Appellant then participated in

interview and in tests to determine his computer

knowledge – Appellant was not selected as he lacked

basic knowledge of computer operations–Held,

appellant appeared in interview knowing selection

criteria that too without any protest at any stage –

Now he cannot turn back to state that procedure

adopted for selection was wrong and without jurisdiction

– Uttaranchal Judical Service Rules, 2005 – Rr.8, 14, 17,

78

18 and 19 – Estoppel, Acquiescence and Waiver –

Acquiescence – Doctrines – Doctrine of approbate and

reprobate.”

38. Sri V.R.Sarathy, the learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.7, 8 and 16 in W.P.No.15417/2012 and

15636-15664/2012 has raised the threshold bar to the

maintainability of the writ petitions. He submits that the

prayer ‘B’ for quashing amendment to Rule 3 of the

Absorption Rules 2006 and 2007 or in the alternative for

quashing the said Rules themselves and consequently to

terminate the services of respondent Nos.5 to 124 pertain to

the conditions of service. Therefore, the petitioners cannot

approach this Court in the first instance itself without

exhausting the statutory alternative remedy of filing the case

before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. Relying on this

Court’s decision in the case of K.S.SUNITHA AND ANOTHER

v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in

ILR 2005 KAR 3194 he would submit that an in-service

doctor’s chance to get a seat to postgraduate medical courses

may be examined here, but the issue of deputation has to be

raised only before the Tribunal, as it is a condition of service.

He read out para 31 of the said decision.

“31. From the discussion made above, it is clear

that allotment of a Post Graduate seat to an in-service

candidate is not made a part of the Karnataka Civil

79

Service Rules. An in-service candidate has a chance

to secure a seat for higher studies. He cannot claim a

seat as a matter of right. It is not intrinsically

connected with conditions of service. I am of the view

that petitioner’s entitlement to a seat for Post-

Graduate course as in-service candidate is not a

condition of service. Therefore the writ petitioners

filed by the petitioners are maintainable. Point No.(ii)

is accordingly answered.”

39. To drive home the point that the deputation is a

condition of service, he relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in

the case of STATE OF PUNJAB v. KAILASH NATH reported

in (1989) 1 SCC 321. He brings to my notice the first part

of para 7 of the said decision, which reads as follows:

“7. In the normal course what falls within the

purview of the term “conditions of service” may be

classified as salary or wages including subsistence

allowance during suspension, the periodical increment,

pay scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity,

confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or

termination of service, compulsory or premature

retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age

of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary

proceedings……………….”

(emphasis supplied)

40. As the impugned notifications involve the omission

of a condition regarding the deputation, the proper forum for

the ventilation of petitioners’ grievance is the Administrative

Tribunal.

80

41. The learned counsel submits that this Court cannot

be approached in the first instance even for the purpose of

challenging the vires of the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules.

In support of his submissions, he relies on the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of RAJEEV KUMAR AND ANOTHER v.

HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN AND OTHERS reported in

(2010) 4 SCC 554. Paras 11 and 12 of the said decision

read as follows:

“11. On a proper reading of the above quoted two

sentences, it is clear:

a) The tribunals will function the only court of first

instance in respect of the areas of law for which

they have been constituted.

b) Even where any challenge is made to the vires

of legislation, excepting the legislation under

which tribunal has been set up, in such cases

also, litigants will not be able to directly

approach the High Court “overlooking the

jurisdiction of the tribunal”.

12. The aforesaid propositions have been repeated

again by the Constitution Bench (in L.Chandra Kumar

case) in the penultimate para 99 at p.311 of the

Report in the following words:

“99. ……. The Tribunals will, nevertheless,

continue to act like courts of first instance in

respect of the areas of law for which they

have been constituted. It will not, therefore,

be open for litigants to directly approach the

81

High Courts even in cases where they

question the vires of statutory legislations

(except where the legislation which creates

the particular Tribunal is challenged) by

overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

concerned.”

42. The learned counsel also takes exception to the

conduct of the petitioners who have participated in the

process of selection. On getting lesser number of marks in the

entrance test, they have challenged the notification, dated

18.1.2011. He further points out that the petitioners have also

been given 30 marks pursuant to the introduction of the Rule

5A by virtue of the impugned notification. It is therefore not

open to the petitioners to be fence-sitters and challenge the

notification on realising that they are not likely to be selected.

43. Sri Sarathy would contend that there cannot be

counseling after 31st May going by the dicta of the Apex Court

in the cases of MRIDUL DHAR (MINOR) AND ANOTHER v.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and MEDICAL COUNCIL

OF INDIA v. MANAS RANJAN BEHERA AND OTHERS

reported in (2005) 2 SCC 65 and (2010) 1 SCC 173

respectively. He would therefore pray for the rejection of all

the petitions on the ground of impermissibility of holding the

counseling after 31st May.

82

44. Sri K.M.Nataraj, the learned Additional Advocate

General submits that the State has taken the steps to depute

all the general duty medical officers, who have completed 3

years of service irrespective of whether they are directly

recruited or absorbed. To bring the absorbed doctors on par

with the direct recruitees, the State amended Rule 3(2) of the

Absorption Rules, 2006, 2007 and 2009 with effect from

30.12.2011 by deleting the provisions containing the

prohibition against the deputation of those absorbed doctors,

who have not served for a minimum period of 6 years in rural

areas after absorption.

45. The learned Additional Advocate General submits

that the State also decided to give weightage to those

doctors, who have served in the rural areas by inserting Rule

5A to PGET Rules. This is done to motivate the doctors to go

to the rural areas and to stay back in the government service.


that the omission of the following clause “and shall not be

deputed for higher studies during that period” from Rule 3(2)

of the Absorption Rules do not suffer from any vice. If the

date from which the omission comes into force is not

specified, it has to be taken that the omitted part never

existed on the statute. In effect, the Government’s act of

83

omitting the prohibition does not make any difference. In this

regard, he read out para 15 and 16 of the Apex Court’s

judgment in the case of INDIAN TOBACCO CO. LTD. v. THE

COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, BHAVANIPORE AND

OTHERS reported in AIR 1975 SC 155. The same are

extracted hereinbelow:

“15. The general rule of construction is that the

repeal of a repealing Act does not revive anything

repealed thereby. But the operation of this rule is not

absolute. It is subject to the appearance of a

“different intention” in the repealing statute. Again,

such intention may be explicit or implicit. The

questions, therefore, that arise for determination are:

Whether in relation to cigarettes, the 1941 Act was

repealed by the 1954 Act and the latter by the 1958

Act? Whether the 1954 Act and 1958 Act were

repealing enactments? Whether there is anything in

the 1954 Act and the 1958 Act indicating a revival of

the 1941 Act in relation to cigarettes?

16. It is now well settled that “repeal” connotes

abrogation or obliteration of one statute by another,

from the statute book as completely “as if it had never

been passed”; when an act is repealed, “it must be

considered (except as to transactions past and closed)

as if it had never existed.” (Per Tindal, C.J. in Kay v.

Goodwin, (1830) 6 Bing 576 at p.582 and Lord

Tenterdon in Surtees v. Ellison, (1829) 9 B & C 750 at

p.752) cited with approval in State of Orissa v.

M.A.Tulloch and Co., AIR 1964 SC 1284.”

84


that the validity of delegated legislation can be questioned

only on two grounds.

a) If it violates any fundamental right.

b) If it is in violation of the parent statute under which it is

made.

48. The Rules cannot be challenged the way that the

administrative acts or executive circulars are challenged. It is

the prerogative of the master to change the service conditions

of its employees. As the malafides are not pleaded in the writ

petition and as the impugned amendments to the Rules have

not violated any of the rights of the in-service doctors, the

challenge to the Rules is not entertainable.

49. He submits that there are no vested rights in favour

of the petitioning doctors. Whether the in-service doctors are

to be sent on deputation for higher courses after 3 years or 6

years falls within the realm of the policy-making of the

Government.

50. Relying on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of

KRISHNAN KAKKANTH v. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA

AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 9 SCC 465, the learned

Additional Advocate General submits that the Government

85

policy cannot be struck down by the courts unless the policy is

demonstrably arbitrary, capricious, irrational, discriminatory or

violative of constitutional or statutory provisions. In the said

case, the Supreme Court has this to say in paragraph No.36

of its judgment:

“36. To ascertain unreasonableness and

arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the

Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any

exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy

decision of the State Government. It is immaterial

whether a better or more comprehensive policy

decision could have been taken. It is equally

immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy

decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose

for which such decision has been taken. Unless the

policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary

and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it

suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any

statute or provisions of the Constitution, the policy

decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in

mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a

public policy in the context of illegality and

unconstitutionality, courts should avoid “embarking on

uncharted ocean of public policy.”

51. The learned Additional Advocate General would

submit that what additional weightage has to be given to a

doctor, who has served in the rural area, is again a policy

decision of the Government. He would submit that the

deliberations and notes preceding the introduction of 5A

86

discloses the weightage of 6 marks was proposed and a larger

body after weighting pros and cons has collectively fixed the

marks at 8. This is not the decision of any individual nor are

such marks being allotted to favour any particular candidate.


that the earlier notification, dated 18.1.2011 introducing Rule

5A was withdrawn on 7.3.2011 as the Rajiv Gandhi University

of Health Science (‘RGUHS’ for short) complained of the

operational difficulty, as the admission process had already

begun. On reconsidering the matter, the notification, dated

7.3.2011 was withdrawn on 7.4.2011 reviving the earlier

notification, dated 18.1.2011. He would submit that reviving

is virtually re-enactment. He also submits that the

Government took the legal opinion before reviving the

notification, dated 18.1.2011.


that the challenge to the amendments of the Rules relating to

the omission of 6 years gestation period and the rural

weightage is to be rejected on the short ground of the

petitioners not filing the objections to the draft Rules.


that the Government has the power to issue the notifications

with the retrospective effect. Relying on the Apex Court’s

87

judgment in the case of VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.

AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

reported in (1990) 3 SCC 87, he contends that a Rule has to

be deemed as a part of the statute itself. Therefore, the

correctness of the Government’s decision to give the

weightage of 8 marks to the doctor, who has served in the

rural area cannot be a subject matter of judicial review.

55. In the course of rejoinder, Sri Madhusudhan R. Naik,

the learned Senior Counsel submits that the policy of the

State can be challenged on the grounds of discrimination,

arbitrariness and capriciousness. For repelling the

Government’s argument that the challenge to the legislative

policy is not amenable to judicial review, he relied on the

Apex Court’s judgment in the case of STATE OF T.N AND

ANOTHER v. P.KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS reported

in (2006) 4 SCC 517 and L.CHANDRAKUMAR v. UNION

OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261,

wherein it is held that the power of judicial review vested in

the High Court and the Supreme Court under Article 226/227

and 32 is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.


distinction has to be made between the repeal and omission.

It is only the repeal, which dates back to the introduction of

88

the statute; the mere omission would not date back to the

date of the introduction of a statute. It is all the more so,

when the benefit had accrued to a party before issuing the

notification of omission. In this regard, he has relied on the

Apex Court’s judgment in the case of S.L.SRINIVASA JUTE

TWINE MILLS (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND

ANOTHER reported in (2006) 2 SCC 740.

57. In response to the threshold objection raised by Sri

Sarathy, it is the submission of Sri M.R.Naik that even when

an alternative remedy is available, this Court cannot be said

to be lacking in the jurisdiction. When the reliefs sought are

interconnected and as there is joinder of causes of action,

Order 2 Rule 3 of CPC applies.

58. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that as

no cut-off date for the purpose of completion of 6 years of

rural service is fixed either under the Absorption Rules or

under the KSCR or in the notifications, the last date for the

receipt of application has to be taken as the cut-off date. In

this regard, he relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the

case of ASHOK KUMAR SONKAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND

OTHERS reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54. Para 11 of the said

decision read by the learned Senior Counsel, is as follows:

89

“11. The question as to what should be the cut-off

date in the absence of any date specified in this behalf

either in the advertisement or in the reference is no

longer res integra. It would be last date for filing

application as would appear from the discussions

made hereinafter. “

59. He submits that the seniority alone has to be

considered for the purpose of deputation, as per Clause 5 of

Appendix II of KCSR.

60. The submissions of the learned advocates have

received my thoughtful consideration. The threshold objection

to the maintainability of the writ petitions challenging the

vires of the Rules affecting the conditions of service is to be

considered first. The Apex Court in the case of Kailashnath

(supra) has held that deputation is also a condition of

service. The much debated condition is that the absorbed

doctors shall not be deputed for higher studies for a period of

six years is precisely a condition of service. Its omission from

Rule 3(2) of the Absorption Rules, 2006 and 2007 is a

condition of service. The litigants desirous of challenging the

vires of the Rules governing the conditions of service cannot

be permitted to approach this Court in the first instance by

overlooking the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal. In

taking this view, I am fortified by the Apex Court’s judgment

in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra).

90

61. The validity of the Absorption Rules and the

prayer for the termination of the services of the respondent

Nos.5 to 124 in W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012

are all the service matters and the petitioners in the said

cases may have to approach the Karnataka Administrative

Tribunal for the redressal of their grievances.

62. However, the writ petitions can be entertained for

the limited purpose of examining the other prayers made. The

validity of the newly inserted Rule 5A to PGET Rules can be

examined here because an in-service doctor cannot claim the

seat as a matter of right. Getting a seat is not intrinsically

connected with the conditions of service. In taking this view,

I am fortified by this Court’s decision in the case of Sunitha

(supra).

63. Let me now examine as to whether the challenge to

the amendment of PGET by way of insertion of Rule 5A can be

examined at the instance of some of the petitioners. The

amendment introduced to PGET Rules reads as follows:

“5A. Merit list of in-service candidates.– (1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules,

while preparing the merit list of candidates in respect

of in-service candidates working under the Directorate

91

of Health and Family Welfare Services, who has

secured minimum qualifying marks, a weightage of

four marks for each completed year of service beyond

five years of service shall be added to the marks

secured in the entrance test subject to a maximum of

thirty marks.

Provided that for each completed year of rural

service beyond five years of service, a weightage of

eight marks shall be added to the marks secured in

the entrance test in lieu of four marks subject to a

maximum of thirty marks. No weightage shall be

added for the service rendered below five years.

Explanation.– For the purpose of this rule, rural

service means the service rendered in areas other than

the areas falling within the limits of municipal

corporation, city municipal council, town municipality,

town panchayat established under the Karnataka

Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the Karnataka

Municipalities Act, 1964 as the case may be and upto

such distance from these limits as may be notified by

the State Government as urban area and includes the

service rendered in rural areas under the contract

period and rural service rendered under the rural

weightage selection.”

64. These Rules had come into force when the in-service

doctors herein had submitted their applications for appearing

for PGET and indeed appeared for the said test. Further, the

petitioners in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012

had also got the weightage of 4 marks for every completed

92

year of service beyond 5 years of service subject to the

maximum of 30 marks. The same is by virtue of Rule 5A only.

65. The petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around

and raise the challenge to the Rules, as and when it suits their

convenience. In the case of Manish Kumar Shahi (supra),

the Apex Court has taken the considered view that a

candidate who has participated in the selection process and

failed to qualify cannot be permitted to turn around and

challenge the process of selection.

66. In the case of Dhananjay (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that the candidates, who have

unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without

any demur, are estopped from challenging the selection

criterion.

67. In the case of Vijendra Kumar Verma (supra),

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that a candidate cannot

question the procedure when no minimum benchmark or a

new procedure was ever introduced during the midstream of

the selection process.

68. For yet another reason too, I am disinclined to

entertain the challenge to the validity of Rule 5A. It is not in

dispute that the draft amendment to Rule 5 of the PGET Rules

93

proposing the insertion of Rule 5A was notified in the gazette.

None of the petitioners or the respondent in-service doctors

have filed the objections.

69. I am definitely not laying down any hard and fast

rule that one cannot challenge the final notification without

filing the objections to the draft notification. But, in the

instant case, the petitioners’ failure to file objections is

coupled with their participation in the selection process and

obtaining the weightage marks as per Rule 5A. The timing of

their raising the challenge also cannot be ignored. They have

approached this Court on knowing their position in the merit

list. Such chance litigation cannot be encouraged. Their

conduct disentitles them to any relief based on their challenge

to Rule 5A.

70. The third and the last question that falls for my

consideration is which one amongst the PGET Rules, KCSR

and Absorption Rules would prevail over the other two in case

of repugnancy or conflict amongst them?

71. The KCSR are the general Rules applying to all

persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State of

Karnataka.

94

72. The Absorption Rules are for the absorption of

contract doctors in the Department of Health and Family

Welfare Services.

73. The PGET Rules are for the selection of the

candidates for admission to the postgraduate medical and

dental degree and diploma Courses.

74. When specific Rules are made governing the

admission to postgraduate medical and dental degree and

diploma courses, it is to be presumed that the situation is

intended to be dealt with by the special Rules, which in the

instant case are the PGET Rules. The special overrides the

general. It is expressed in the maxim generalibus specialia

derogant (special provisions override general ones). The

converse principle is generalia specialibus non derogant

(general provisions do not override special ones).

75. In case of inconsistency between the provisions of

two enactments, both of which can be regarded as special in

nature, the conflict has to be resolved by referring to the

purpose and policy underlying the two enactments. In the

instant case, the State Government’s policy is to give equal

opportunities to all the in-service doctors, who have

completed three years of service irrespective of whether they

95

are directly recruited or absorbed. The additional weightage

is also given to a doctor, who has served in the rural areas.

The focus or the thrust appears to be on the health care in the

rural sector.

76. I am also not persuaded to interfere on the ground

that the posting of some doctors in the rural area is giving an

unfair advantage to those, who are posted only in the rural

areas. It is not the case of any in-service doctor that he is

not posted to any rural area despite his request for the same.

On the other hand, the rush appears only to be for the posting

in the urban areas.

77. For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss

W.P.No.15417/2012 and 15636-15664/2012 and

W.P.No.15366/2012. W.P.No.15365/2012 is dismissed as not

pressed.

78. The grievance of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16337-

16349/2012 and W.P.Nos.15807-15810/2012 and 15811-

15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 is only over the circulars and

the ranking list issued in the wake of the interim orders

granted in W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012

and W.P.Nos.15365-66/2012. In the wake of the dismissal of

the W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and

96

W.P.Nos.15365-15366/2012, the ranking list has to be

prepared in consonance with the impugned amendment to

PGET Rules and the omission of the condition in Rule 3(2) of

the 2006 and 2007 Absorption Rules. The circulars issued in

the wake of the granting of the interim orders in

W.P.No.15417/2012 and W.P.Nos.15636-664/2012 and

W.P.Nos.15365-366/2012 are also quashed. W.P.Nos.15807-

15810/2012 and 15811-15812/2012, 15813-15816/2012 and

W.P.Nos.16337-16349/2012 are allowed accordingly.

79. No arguments whatsoever are addressed in

W.P.No.14430/2012. The petitioner’s concerns stand

substantially considered in terms of the order passed in the

connected petitions. As far as the said petitioner’s further

grievance over the showing of the date erroneously as

18.12.2008 in the relieving order, instead of showing it

correctly as 18.12.2007 is concerned, the second respondent

hereby is directed to consider her representation, dated

17.4.2012 (Annexure-H) and pass appropriate orders thereon

within four days. W.P.No.14430/2012 is accordingly disposed

of.

80. As these petitions are filed by the in-service doctors

appointed in different years and from different sources making

the claims and counter-claims, the matter required considered

97

hearing. To ward off the confusion and uncertainity, I directed

the maintenance of status quo in respect of the counseling,

which has already taken place and stayed all further

counseling proceedings. The same was by my interim order,

dated 24.5.2012. As the interim order continued to be in

force from 24.5.2012 till 8.6.2012, I deem it necessary and

just to direct the extension of time for the completion of the

counseling process for admission to postgraduate medical

courses from the in-service category of doctors till 15.6.2012.

81 No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD

THjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...3 AND: 1. The State of Karnataka,...

Documents

Transcript of THjudgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgments/bitstream/123456789/...3 AND: 1. The State of Karnataka,...