Karnataka High Court
Dr. Ramappa Tegur S/O. Mallappa vs The Central Council Of Indian Medicine on 28 June, 2022
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.100369/2021 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
DR. RAMAPPA TEGUR
S/O. MALLAPPA
AGE. 48 YEARS,
OCC. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
R/O. BASAVA NILAYA
H.NO.52 NETAJI COLONY
NEAR KESHAV KUNJ GOKUL ROAD,
HUBLI-580024
...PETITIONER
(By Sri SUNIL DESAI & C.S SHETTAR, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . THE CENTRAL COUNCIL
OF INDIAN MEDICINE
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
OFFICE, 61, 65 INSTITUTIONAL AREA,
JANAKPURI D BLOCK,
NEW DELHI -110058
2 . THE PRINCIPAL
SANJEEVINI AYURVEDA
MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL
K.S.SHARMA CAMPUS
GOKUL ROAD,HUBLI-58030
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)
***
2
THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS BY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO
CONSIDER THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND PETITIONER AT VIDE ANNEXURE-J
DATED.18.02.2019 BEARING NO.SAMCH/2019-20/209
AND ANNEXURE-J1 DATED.20.12.2020 RESPECTIVELY
FOR ISSUING FRESH TEACHER CODE IN RESPECT OF THE
PETITIONER WHILE RELAXING THE AGE LIMIT IN TERMS
OF RULE 13(B) (III) INDIAN MEDICINE CENTRAL COUNCIL
(MINIMUM STANDARDS OF EDUCATION IN INDIAN
MEDICINE) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 2016, ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent No.1 - The Central Council Of Indian Medicine, to consider the application made by respondent No.2 - The Principal, Sanjeevini Ayurveda Medical College And Hospital and the petitioner, vide Annexures - J & J1 dated 18.02.2019 and 20.12.2020, respectively, for the purpose of issuance of fresh teacher code.
2. Petitioner was appointed as Resident Medical Officer in respondent No.2 - College on 01.01.2016. Pursuant to reporting for duty and the continuation of his services, petitioner made request to respondent No.2 - College seeking permission for PG Studies on deputation. 3 Respondent No.2 - College granted permission vide order dated 24.09.2016 with a condition to rejoin the college after completion of his PG Studies.
3. After completion of PG degree on 09.11.2019, petitioner made a request to respondent No.2 - College to rejoin as Resident Medical Officer after deputation period. Based on which petitioner came to be reappointed to the said post by appointment order dated 10.11.2019. Petitioner completed his PG studies in MD Ayurveda Rachana Shareera. In view of the same and being eligible for the post of Assistant Professor, petitioner made request to respondent No.2 - College to appoint him as Assistant Professor in the Department of Rachana Shareera. Accordingly, based on the eligibility, petitioner came to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer in the said department as Assistant Professor in the respondent No.2 - College by appointment order dated 20.12.2019. Subsequent there to petitioner reported for duty and continued till date.
4. This being the state of affairs respondent No.2
- College issued a letter dated 18.02.2019 to the 4 respondent No.1 herein to generate fresh teacher code to the petitioner and so also petitioner made similar application on 21.12.2019 to the respondent No.1. To his shock and surprise petitioner received a reply wherein his request came to be rejected by respondent No.1 stating that petitioner crossed the age of 45 years at the time of appointment, vide Annexure-K, which was sent to his e- mail and also intimated to the respondent No.2 - College as per Annexure-K1. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the fresh teacher code by the respondent No.1 petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that after fulfilling the requirement of qualification of PG studies, petitioner duly discharged duties in the respondent No.2 - College, he got appointed to the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer in the college. He also contends that petitioner is in regular service with the respondent No.2 - College from the year 2016 and according to him as per the Regulation 13(b)(iii) of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) Amendment Regulations, 5 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations' for short) vide Annexure-M, 'the age shall not exceed forty five years at the time of first appointment and it may be relaxed for in-service candidates as per the existing rules.' He submits that even though his age is more than 45 years it can be relaxed on the ground that the petitioner is in-service candidate. I
6. He further contends that based on the aforesaid Regulations, the petitioner is suitable for the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer and accordingly respondent No.2 - College has rightfully given appointment order to the said post. The qualification required is fulfilled by the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer, now what is sought for by the petitioner is only teacher code, which is to be issued by the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 pursuant to the communication made by the petitioner has rejected the same on the ground of petitioner cross the age of 45 years, vide Annexure-K and that he cannot be considered eligible.
6
7. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that as per 13(b)(iii) of the Regulations, the age shall not exceed forty five years at the time of first appointment, which is not applicable to the case of petitioner since he is in-service candidate. He further contends that as on the date of appointment of the petitioner to the respondent No.2 - College, he is well within the age of 45 years during 2016 and so also he is in service candidate, who should get age relaxation being in- service candidate. Therefore, the order of communication of rejection passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-K is a cryptic order without considering any of the requisite requirement under the Regulations. Therefore, he filed another application vide Annexure-J and so also respondent No.2 - College filed Annexure-J1, seeking for issuance of fresh teacher code in respect of petitioner.
8. Per contra, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the petitioner is not entitled to be issued with fresh teacher code in view of the fact that he is appointed as Resident Medical Officer in the initial stage and as on the date of 7 appointment of Assistant Professor / Lecturer, he had already completed the age 45 years. Therefore, he contends that as per the requirement of Regulations 13(b)(iii) relaxation of age cannot be extended to the petitioner as his age is beyond 45 years.
9. He further contends that for the post of Assistant Professor / Lecturer, petitioner ought not to have completed the age of 45 years as on the date of appointment as Assistant Professor / Lecturer. In view of the fact of petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years, respondent No.1 cannot generate the teacher code and the same is rightly rejected. It is also contended by the respondent No.1 that the experience as JRF, SRF, Senior Resident, Junior Resident cannot be considered as teaching experience.
10. Similar issue was considered and decided by the Executive Committee of the Erst while Central Council of Indian Medicine, New Delhi, dated 04.12.2019, wherein it is held that for consideration of regular Ph.D as one year teaching experience, teacher has to submit the certificate 8 from concerned University certifying that the candidate has done his/her Ph.D by regular mode.
11. Therefore, on the basis of this submission he contends that petitioner has failed to fulfill the eligibility criteria as required mandatorily under concerned Regulations and due to failure of petitioner in providing necessary eligible criteria he has been rightly rejected for issuance of teacher code. Hence, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the issuance of Annexure-K, it is seen that respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the Regulations in to account has rejected issuance of teacher code on the ground that petitioner crossed the age of 45 years at the time of appointment and cannot be considered for allotment of teacher code. This rejection order of respondent No.1 appears to be cryptic order, without application of mind and without assigning reasons. The respondent No.1 would have to pass a speaking order on the basis of representation made by the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 - College. In view of the same 9 petitioner deserves favourable order and respondent No.1 shall pass a detailed reasoned order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER (1) Writ petition is allowed.; (2) A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent No.1 to consider the application made by th0e petitioner vide Annexures - J dated 18.02.2019 as well as respondent No.2 -
College vide Annexure-J1 20.12.2020, for the purpose of issuance of fresh teacher code and the same shall be considered and a detailed order be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order SD/-
JUDGE VK