Karnataka High Court
Dr Ajitha Sharma vs State Of Karnataka on 10 April, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S. Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.51485/2015 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR.AJITHA SHARMA,
W/O DR.RAMPRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
"CHAITHRA" MAHALINGESHWARA NAGAR,
POST:KORANGRALAPADY, UDUPI,
UDUPI DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT,
4/03, JIPMER, STAFF QUARTERS,
JIPMER, PONDICHERRY - 605 006.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE SECRETARIAT,
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
3. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES,
BENGALURU - 560 009.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.J.M.UMESH MURTHY, HCGP)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED
07.09.2015 PASSED BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICE,
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-A AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY BACK AN AMOUNT OF
RS.5,00,000/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% FROM
01.01.2014 TILL ACTUAL PAYMENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this court assailing the endorsement dated 07.09.2015 impugned at Annexure-A to the writ petition. In that light, the petitioner is seeking issue of a mandamus to direct the respondents to pay back the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest till the date of payment.
2. The petitioner after completion of her MBBS Course had opted to pursue her further education by having herself admitted to MD in Pharmacology. The petitioner was assigned a seat in the Manipal Academy. Having completed the course, since the documents had not been returned to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not undertaken the rural service, a 3 sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was collected from the petitioner by making reference to Rule 15(7) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to PG Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course Rules 2002.
3. The petitioner contending that such payment was not required to be made by the petitioner had thereafter filed a representation seeking refund of the amount. Since the representation had not been considered, the petitioner was before this court in WP No. 47192/2014. This court through the order dated 17.10.2014, had directed the respondents to take note of the representation, so also the supporting document and rules and take a decision in accordance with law. The respondents through the endorsement dated 07.09.2015 have rejected the request of the petitioner for refund. It is in that light the petitioner is before this court in this writ petition.
4. The respondents have filed the objection statement essentially to justify their action by placing reliance on the Rules 15(5) and 15(7) of the Karnataka 4 Conduct of Entrance Test for Selection and Admission to PG Medical and Dental Degree and Diploma Course Rules 2002. In that light, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner had obtained the seat for post graduate degree course in Pharmacology at Kasturba Medical College which is a deemed university, under the Government quota. It is in that light contended that the petitioner was not entitled for refund of the amount as the rural service was required to be undertaken. Hence the respondents seek to sustain the endorsement dated 07.09.2015 at Annexure-A to the representation.
5. I have heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the petition papers.
6. It is seen that pursuant to the order dated 17.10.2014 issued by this court in W.P. No.47192/2014 while considering the representations submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 having taken note of the fact situation that he petitioner has not obtained the 5 government seat under the concession fee was of the opinion that as per Rule 15(5) of the Rules 2006, the payment was not required to be made by the petitioner. Having arrived at such opinion the respondent No.2 had addressed the communication to the respondent No.1 for appropriate guidance as such decision was to be taken in the matter. It is in that background, the impugned endorsement dated 07.09.2015 has been subsequently issued to the petitioner.
7. A perusal of the Rule 15(5) of the Rules 2006 would indicate that the three years rural service is applicable to the candidates who have selected the seats in the Government institution or government seats in private college under the concession fees quota. The petitioner, no doubt, has obtained the Government seat in a private college. The certificate dated 03.10.2015 at Annexure-D issued by the institution concerned discloses that the petitioner has not availed any concession in fee for the course. If that being the position, the rule concerned does not apply to the case of the petitioner. In such circumstance, if the petitioner 6 had been constrained to pay the amount in the circumstance, as it was done as the petitioner was required to pursue her future and the documents were required, that by itself cannot be held against the petitioner so as to approve the action of the respondents through the endorsement dated 07.09.2015 at Annexure- A. Hence in a circumstance where the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount but was forced to pay the same, the refund is necessary to be ordered. However at this juncture, I do not see any reason to direct payment of interest. However if the refund is not made within a time frame for paying the amount, thereafter the amount would attract interest.
8. In view of the above, the endorsement dated 07.09.2015 is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
9. If the amount is not refunded within the time frame as indicated above, the amount would thereafter attract interest at 9% P.A for the next period of three 7 months and thereafter at 12% p.a. till the amount is refunded to the petitioner.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE Bsv