Karnataka High Court
Sri Dilip Kumar S/O Vaijinath vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors on 5 June, 2017
Author: B.V.Nagarathna
Bench: B.V.Nagarathna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
WRIT PETITION Nos.202252/2016
& 202259/2016 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Sri Dilip Kumar S/o Vaijanath
Aged about 51 years
Working as Electrician in
Bidar Research Institute and
Medical Sciences (BRIMS)
Teaching Hospital, Bidar
R/o at No.69, Shivanagar North
Bidar.
...PETITIONER
(By Sri P. Vilas Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its
Principal Secretary
Health and Family Welfare Services Dept.
M.S.Building, Bengaluru
2
2. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Secretary
Medical Education Department
M.S.building, Bengaluru
3. The Director
Bidar Research Institute and
Medical Sciences (BRIMS) Teaching Hospital
Bidar.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.V.Nadagouda, Additional Advocate General &
Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, Additional Government Advocate
for R1 and R2;
Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of
certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.06.2016 passed
by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application
No.4648/2016 which is at Annexure-B, consequently issue
a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of repatriation
bearing No.ByuSam/Vicharane/CR-1/2016-17-Annexure 9
dated 19.05.2016, which is at Annexure A3.
This petition coming on for orders this day,
Nagarathna, J., made the following:
ORDER
Though the writ petition is listed to consider I.A.I/2016 filed by respondent No.3 seeking vacation of the interim order granted by this court dated 20.06.2016, we have nevertheless heard learned counsel for the respective parties on merits. 3
2. The petitioner is working as an Electrician in Bidar Research Institute and Medical Sciences and Teaching Hospital, Bidar ('BRIMS' for the sake of convenience). He was initially appointed by order dated 24.04.1992 as an Electrician in the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services. Subsequently by Government Order dated 11.06.2007 all the persons who are working in the District Hospitals coming under the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services were transferred to Medical Colleges at the respective districts namely Hassan, Mandya, Belgaum, Shimoga, Raichur and Bidar, which came under the control of the Department of Medical Education, with immediate effect along with the infrastructure, buildings, equipment, staff, Budget etc. All these District Hospitals were construed to be teaching hospitals coming under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Director/Dean/Principal of these Medical 4 colleges. The petitioner, who was working in District Hospital, Bidar pursuant to the said Government Order was transferred to BRIMS and was working in BRIMS and his services have been continued in BRIMS. The grievance of the petitioner arose when the Director of BRIMS - respondent No.3 herein passed order dated 19.05.2016 to the effect that his services were repatriated to his parent department that is to the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services. The said order (Annexure-A3) was assailed before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for the sake of convenience) in Application No.4648/2016 by order dated 03.06.2016 the application has been dismissed. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the applicant has preferred this writ petition.
3. Petitioner's counsel contended that when his services were transferred along with all other 5 persons who are working in District Hospital, Bidar to BRIMS pursuant to order dated 11.06.2007 passed by the State Government by the impugned order at Annexure-A3 dated 19.05.2016 the Director of BRIMS
- respondent No.3 could not have repatriated his services to the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services. He contended that so long as the Government Order dated 11.06.2007 stands and is not modified he continuous to remain under the administrative and disciplinary control of BRIMS. That the Tribunal ought to have appreciated this aspect of the matter and quashed order dated 19.05.2016 issued by the Director of BRIMS - respondent No.3 herein.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - BRIMS contended that although the State Government has passed order dated 11.06.2007 several directions have been issued with regard to the 6 employees transfer from the District Hospitals to the Colleges and therefore under a misimpression respondent No.3 - Director repatriated the services of the petitioner to his parent department namely the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services on account of certain allegations pending against him. He contended that if order dated 11.06.2007 stands, then, the petitioner would come under the administrative and disciplinary control of the Director/Dean/Principal of Medical Colleges and in the instant case respondent No.3 is the Director of the Institute.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State would also endorse the said submission to contend that the Director of respondent No.3-Institute could not have repatriated the petitioner to the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services. Order dated 11.06.2007 has been 7 produced by learned counsel for respondent No3. By that order the services of the employees who are working in various District Hospitals coming under the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services have been transferred to the District Hospitals at various places including Bidar which are teaching Hospitals coming under the Department of Medical Education.
6. In that view of the matter, the services of the petitioner herein have also stood transferred to respondent No.3 - Institute. In the circumstances, he comes under the administrative and disciplinary control of respondent No.3 - Director of the Institute. When that is the position the said authority could not have repatriated the services of the petitioner to the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services which could be done only by the State Government. Therefore, order dated 19.05.2016 is quashed. It is clarified that the petitioner comes under the 8 administrative and disciplinary control of respondent No.3 - Institution, which comes under the Department of Medical Education. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. In view of the above, it is also made clear that the petitioner has no lean in the Department of Health & Family Welfare Services in so far as administrative and disciplinary control is concerned.
No costs.
In view of the disposal of the writ petition all interim orders stand vacated. I.A.I/2016 is accordingly disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE sdu